


JCXC ^ - 



e 

... <"^c: 

<s<:. _^ 

^ c<, cc, <: tC <" <' 















Cki; <:r •'C ■• < <jII c?. ^< 



<:::<Ci o <:!< c 
tcj c:<c::< c 

<:c:<<::<l Cc 

c:c'c<:-<: c>c.. 






'T^ !,'<: <" 






<5; -c: 



<3 c 









<^fe<. 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 






<'^' ' <: 



<1 c 

<cx 






<£^< .^^ '<-.< re < 
cTfkL ^ fc c <rc" c « 

cjX,: ■ d <c ccr'"0!c 
<<<- . <:. '< c cc:" <r\ 

<r<'<-_. 'c:' < < cc <r^- 
<?x<_ <L^<i:€: ccr' Cx 
!<'<:_ ^H'^c. CO c^'-c 

^c^*^ <_<«-<. rxT C'< 

:"<cc<: ■■ c:^< 

-< <r<c c'^ 

1 <^'<ci c<r c" 

<c<r <:v<c<c' 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 



one 



■<ir<: 
<?c<; 



c<^ 

C C 

<^ x/ 
cc 
c: c 

c < 
<Z ' 

<: <L 



- ^. x_ 



J -<C<- ^-_ «l^ 

V ' < <c;: • «<3c ^ 'la: -^c: ^ 
^ ^ <: '.c<i<L._ ■ <:'^ <i ■■ 

: ' «o<_ <::<:. ■ 

: 'CCA<:. , <:/<KL 

: <<icc^^ <:'c <«:i 

^ c 5C <-.< /X <::_-<'■ <z:".' 

^c <:^ < <, v-d ^C'i^' ^ "^ 

^<L,'C <i ^-.^^i^ '<:. c3" ■<:: -* 

d'C <: <;< eci <:j\ <c:' : < 

< C d «r<C <: <: d < 

rr d <^: <:•<:<:: <: 



'C <1 

X ;^ 



<:<::<:< ^ 
dd<: <^ ^ 



<3C 



<jc:<^r 



c: ^ <?■'<< 



. <:'„<^ 



c: d < c: « <:_ <: c: 

*^ - d d «* <c. <: <: <: 

^ c c: «n<iti <: <: < - 
::■ -^^ c d«.<c •' <: < ' 
<r < c: ^jm^ < < 

^. • ^: <:^ c c: «, «j£r. i 

.■ ■ -d C: < " 

^/<:C'<<:: <- <i:<:<^' c <: ^^ 

<rv'- '«x:.. ^< ■ <.■ c<:<jr" * c <. ■f''^< 

<d <c<r v<' . c<r"<^- ' <: ' ««iiB^ 



^ <^ ^ 



: <L c 



^.^«^- 


















^^-<L << 



-^-^ cc: c\ 

'^Ilc re < 
2<. 



Tec 

<1C(;CI_. cc:' 

<:c (-C?- ' <■ <:■■ 
<T cCT' c C'- 



<: c 






d^- ed 



4d ^- 



< c * <:; < 









^^dd_ . 



^' ^- CVrxV 

^ C d';C 

< c c 

'~ c c 












^Ci, <J'C' «r ■ ^ - i:^ ^-^^ d^rc 



< 'C''< c .«■<: 



<j. <^ ^ <: 



< c. <:< 



d-T <L r <'* 



d-<^ x^c: -<■ 











'^' ^ ^ ^<^ 

- T -; # 



^ - <s d: 



c •^. 


'T< 




«3 







^-^- 1:. 






"^ ^ "^iC 



d, <k r c:-?- <:__ <. A<? 









<«gcr 






<:■ ■ ^ 

C- ■ ' 



RABBAH TAKEN; 



OR 



THE THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM 



OF 



REV. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, 



EZAmZNSD AKD RSFUTED. 



BY EOBEKT W. LANDIS, 

PASTOR OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, BETHLEHEM, NEW JERSEY. 



.-1 



1 



.4 



«»I have fought afrainst Kabbah, ' 

And have taken the City of Waters," 

2 Savu 12 : 27. 



CINCINNATI: 
WILLIAM H. MOORE & CO 

NO. 110, MAIN STREET, 

BET. THIRD AND FOURTH, 




1844. 



^^tf 



u 





Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1844, by Wm. H. Moore & Co, 
in the District Clerk's Office of the District Court of Ohio. 



STEREOTYPED BT 

SHEPARD k CO. 



PREFACE. 



A THOROUGH examination of the subject of the following pages, has long been a desideratum 
Doth in this country and in England. And the duty of undertaking the task, having plainly 
devolved upon the v^rriter, he has labored to perform it in such a manner, as first to present a 
condensed viev/ of the system of Mr. Campbell, and then a canvass of its pretensions. Facts 
in both cases are copiously stated, and the reader is left to his own conclusions. 

Ever since the publication of the essay on this subject in the American Biblical Repository 
of 1839, the writer has been urged to give it to the public in another form ; but his numer- 
ous professional duties left him too little time, until recently, for the accomplishment of the task 
in the way which he thought circumstances required. For under the allegations of his opponent, 
that the writer had misrepresented him in his statements, he felt that duty required of him to 
give his authorities a patient and thorough re-examination, before re-publishing the essay from under 
his own hand. And as it had been republished in various parts of the country, and in Eng- 
land, without his being consulted, he felt that no imperious necessity as yet required of him to 
neglect other important duties to attend to this. But a request from some of the students of 
one of f>ur most respectable Theological Seminaries, (whose professors had done the writer the 
honor to recommend the essay as a satisfactory refutation of the dogmas which it controverts,) 
as well as a recent appropriation of the essay by an individual who thought proper to copy a 
great part of it without any acknowledgement, have, together with the demand for such a dis- 
cussion at the West and South, induced the writer to undertake the task anew ; and the reader 
is here presented with the result. 

The original essay is in the general incorporated with the present work ; and its positions are 
fortified by many references and quotations not found in that. There is added, also, a discus- 
sion of some other important topics. And as Mr, Campbell has ventured to accuse the 
writer of misrepresenting his views, (though he has furnished no instances corroborative of 
the accusation,) the quotations from his writings in the present work, will be found to be so 
numerous, and so full that every reader will perceive that a reiteration of such a charge in relation 
to the topics refered to, will be as preposterous as it would be unwarrantable, 

Mr, C. has also accused the writer of disputing for victory, and of opposing him " from 
corrupt motives," that so the writer " might bask in the smiles of an adoring multitude, and 
domineer over them for his own advantage." Such charges are easily made : but when their 
author does not condescend to sustain them by any reference to fact, are not to be regarded. 
The writer may be permitted to remark, however, that were he capable of such consummate 
folly, as to waste the precious hours of this life in a dispute for victory over a frail erring 
mortal like himself, he should certainly select an antagonist, over whom victory would be more 
diflicult, as well as more glorious than he should find it to be in the case of Mr. Campbell. 

Mr. C. after having challenged the v/riter to this discussion, finding himself unable to 
meet and refute his arguments, threatened both the writer and the publisher of the essay, with 
a civil prosecution for damages. But the absurdity of a man's challenging another to a dis- 
cussion, and thus reducing him to the alternative of either being branded as recreant to the 
cause of truth, or of being prosecuted, should he accept the challenge and vanquish his adver 
sary, was so glaring, that Mr. C. has, with reason, become heartily ashamed of it. And 
he endeavors to palliate so gross a procedure, by asserting that it was not what was said of Ms 
writings, but of himself that led him thus to threaten. But the futility of this plea is manifest 
For the same personal allusions of which he complained, had been previously pubUshed in Dr. 
Cleland's " Strictures," Dr. Jennings' " Debate," Mr. M'Calla's " Review," and in a little 
work entitled " Campbellism Unmasked;" and yet Mr, C. never threatend a prosecution. 
His threatened resort to law was a mere pretext by which to relieve himself from the force of 



4 PREFACE. 

arguments and statements of fact in reference to his system and " New Version," which he 
could not meet. 

It is scarce necessary for the writer to say that he entertains towards Mr. C. and his 
followers, no other than benevolent and kind feelings ; for he has given no reason to suspect 
the contrary. He candidly confesses that in handling such errors as are here exposed, he can- 
not speak in that excessively mild tone which might lead the reader to suppose that the writer 
deems the error to be but trivial. But aside from this, if the reader find any evidence that the 
work has been written under the influence of prejudice or animosity, or from a mere desire of 
victory, he will doubtless do most ample justice to both the writer and Mr. Campbell. In such 
a case, the writer alone would be the loser. 

That the representation of the system has beeii perfectly fair and candid, can be proved by 
testimonials without number, from such as reside where its features are fully and practically 
developed. Private letters could be quoted, as well as public declarations to this effect. Yet 
the writer will make but a single quotation from the Amer. Biblic. Repos. for April 1840, p. 
469, where, speaking in reference to the essay, the learned editor remarks, as follows : " Those 
of our readers who possess the first numbers of the current series of the Repository, will readily 
recur to the article on ' Campbellism ' by Mr. Landis, That article was read with much 
interest, and several of our most intelligent correspondents in the Werstern and Southern 
States, who are much better acquainted than ourselves with the peculiarities of Campbellism, 
and their practical influence, have taken occasion to express their high sense of the ability and 
justice of Mr. Landis' discussion." And yet Mr. C. has ventured to assert that the writer 
has misrepresented the Campbellite system ! 

In preparing his work, the writer has, also, (as the reader will see,) had an eye to the 
growing corruptions of Popery and Puseyism in this country. The errors advocated by these 
sectaries on the subject of faith, justification, regeneration, &<;., are substantially the same as 
those advocated by Mr. C. 

After presenting a full view of the leading features of the system of Mr. C, (which will 
be found in Chapter II,) the writer proceeds to examine it in detail. Its primary proof-texts 
are thoroughly discussed ; then are considered the doctrines of faith, justification, conversion, 
and regeneration. After refuting the errors of Mr. C. on these points, a plain, popular and 
practical view of the same doctrines is given from the Bible. The writer hopes that this part 
of the discussion will not be thought irrelevant ; for in such a case, he deems it important to 
accompany the refutation of an error with a plain statement of the truth. This branch of the 
discussion, is followed by a chapter of " Direct Arguments " against the system. Then are 
considered the unitarian nature and tendencies of the system ; and this is followed by a 
thorough review of Mr. C.'s "New Version." The whole is concluded with a history of the 
Campbellite controversy, and a review of all the exceptions which Mt. C. has taken to the 
writer's former essay. 

ROBERT W. LANDIS. 

Sidney, New Jersey, 

March, 26, 1844. 



contents; 



PAGE. 

CHAPTER I.— Introduction, 7 

CHAP. n. — The Fundamental Principles of Campbellism pointed out. 

Section I. Mr. Campbell's views of Baptism, 11 

//. His view of Saving Faith, -13 

" III. His view of Conversion, -14 

" IV. View of Justification, ------------- 15 

V. View of Regeneration, ----- I7 

VI. A brief summary of the foregoing views, -------22 

CHAP. HI. — The Proof-Texts which the Campeellites urge in favor 

OF THE foregoing VIEWS, EXAMINED, - 23 

CHAP. IV. — Examination of Mr. C.'s System. 

Section I. Can baptism be performed by immersion ?------ 37 

" //. What is the Saving Faith ? 42 

" IIL The grounds briefly stated upon which a sinner obtains justifi- 
cation before God, 48 

" IV. Conversion, Scriptural view of it, 54 

" V. Regeneration, Scriptural view of it, -------- 62 

CHAP. V. — Direct arguments against Campbellism, - 77 

CHAP. VI. — The Unitarinism of the Campbellite sect, ----- 83 

CHAP. VII. — Their version of the New Testament, ------ 99 

CHAP. VIII. — Review of the Campbellite Controversy, ----- 106 

Conclusion of the v/ork, - 130 

Appendix, .----. I33 



RABBAH TAKEN. 



CAMPBELLISM. 



CHAPTER I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

By CampbellisTrij I mean the system 
of theology promulgated by the Rev. 
Alexander Cmipbell, of Bethany, 
Brooke County, Virginia. I disclaim 
all intention of using this term as a term 
of reproach, though Mr. C.'s followers 
object to it as offensive. It is employed 
simply to avoid circumlocution in discri- 
minating this sect of religionists from 
other professors of Christianity, And it 
is as foreign from our wishes to offend 
the Campbellites by this appellation, as it 
is from theirs to offend others, by using 
the terms Lutheran, Calvinist, Arminian, 
and Papist, for a similar purpose. 

The leaders of this sect boast that it is 
very numerous. Mr. C, himself, in 
1830, affirmed that he had 150,000 fol- 
lowers; and another of their popular 
writers in 1833, estimates the number at 
200,000. And, in his reply to me, Mr. 
Campbell, referring to the same subject, 
remarks in 1840 : " An unexpected, and 
indeed, in these days, an unprecedented 
success has attended our humble and im- 
perfect efforts, and many myriads of the 
excellent of the earth, of all parties, (we 
bless the Lord,) have united with us on 
the high and holy ground of apostolic 
precept and authority, so that hundreds of 
churches all over these United States, 
and some in Great Britain and her Colo- 
nies, have been formed on the ancient 
platform."* 

The number of this sect cannot now 
be ascertained with precision ; but it is 

* See Am. Bib. Repos. for April, 1840, p. 474. 



considerable in the Southern and West- 
ern States. 

Mr. Campbell was originally a Pres- 
byterian clergjrman, and after emigrating 
to this country from Ireland, (of which 
he is a native,) he united with the Baptist 
church. But upon his embracing and 
continuing to promulgate the peculiarities 
of the system which he now advocates, 
the Baptists refused to have further inter- 
course with him ; and in the general, 
they have repudiated both him and his 
system.* 

In an able letterf which the Author 
received from the Rev. Dr. Fishback, of 
the West, a clergyman of the Baptist 
church, (and an advocate of Robert Hall's 
principle of free communion,) who has 
been an opponent of Campbellism for 
many years, the origin of this sect is re- 
ferred to and illustrated. The following 
is an extract : " Campbell's doctrine is, 
that sinners are justified or receive the re- 
mission of their sins by and in a believ- 
ing immersion ; and of course that true 
believers in Jesus Christ, among all the 
sects, are still in their sins, and out of the 
kingdom of Jesus, and cannot be recog- 
nized as Christians. This is the new 
and great discovery which he professes 
to have made or disinterred from under 
the rubbish of ages and generations, un- 
der which it had been lost since shortly 
after the Apostolic age. 

* We give a single instance illustrative of this. By the 
Appomattox (Va.) Association, in 1831, then comprising 
24 churches, 14 ministers, and 4 licentiates and 4000 com- 
municants, the following resolution was adopted : 

'■■•Resolved, That in view if the distracting ravages of 
Campbellism, in the bounds of the Meherrin Associa. 
lion, this association will cease to correspond with that 
Association, until the old leaven be purged out ; and 
that this Association will not, knowingly, correspond 
with any other, holding in fellowship Campbellite 
churches or Campbellite preachers." 

t Dated Lexington Ky., April 1840. 



8 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



" His design was, in setting out with 
his new discovery, to do great things for 
the Baptists. In their close communion, 
the Baptists acted as though Pasdobap- 
tists were in their sins, and out of the 
kingdom of Christ, without assigning 
any other reason for it than their practic- 
ing PsBdobaptism. Campbell's design 
was, to justify the Baptists in their prac- 
tice by giving them a reason for it, which 
is, as above observed, that Psedobaptists 
are actually in their sins, by reason of 
their not having had them remitted in a be- 
lieving immersion, and that they are also 
out of the kingdom of Jesus Christ.— 
This view of the subject took at once 
with a great number of the Baptists, who 
united with Mr. Campbell, and was the 
occasion of dividing nearly fifty Baptist 
churches in Kentucky." 

Dr. Fishback has been acquainted 
with the Campbellites ever since their 
origin as a sect, and this statement re- 
specting the design of Mr. C, can, also, 
be otherwise abundantly established. — 
And starting from this point, Mr. C. not 
only advocates the sentiment here attribu- 
ted to him, (as the reader will see hereaf- 
ter) but all the obnoxious doctrines which 
it necessarily involves. 

For myself, I do not suppose that all 
the truth contained in the Bible has been 
already elicited. If Mr. C. therefore, 
either has discovered or can discover any 
thing therein which has not yet been de- 
veloped, I, for one, will rejoice. But 
surely, the way to do this, is not to begin 
by gathering up the old fragments of an- 
cient exploded errors, and passing them 
off as new discoveries. 

It is a trite remark, that errors in theo- 
logy are no longer new — and that what, 
in the present day, is regarded as such, is 
nothing more than the resuscitation of er- 
ror which existed, and was exploded in a 
former age. Were we disposed to eluci- 
date the truth of this remark, we should 
look in vain for a better, or more confir- 
matory instance, than the one now under 
consideration. Though it may be true, 
that the whole system was never before 
advocated by any single errorist, it is still 
a fact, that there is scarcely a weather- 
board or a tile, which Mr. C. has fasten- 
ed on his singularly heterogeneous struc- 
ture that cannot be shown to belong, ap- 
propriately, to the demolished fabric of 



some other opposer of the Gospel in for- 
mer days. 

Errorists, where the Bible is acknowl- 
edged, when they set out to establish a 
favorite theory in religion, invariably 
claim to be supported by the word of 
God, and manifest an anxious desire that 
this claim should be acknowledged by 
others: — or, at least, that their opinions, 
however wild and extravagant, should be 
admitted to be the result of honest con- 
viction on their part. Public sentiment, 
to an extent that is truly remarkable, 
sanctions this claim, and regards it as un- 
courteous and uncivil to doubt whether 
such an individual honestly believes that 
his views are sanctioned by inspiration. 
No matter how hallucinary, or preposte- 
rous, or abhorrent to the dictates of scrip- 
ture and common sense, the sentiment in 
question may be, we can express no doubt 
of the intelligent sincerity of the convic- 
tions in the mind of the errorist, without 
subjecting ourselves at once to the impu- 
tation of bigotry or uncharitableness. — 
The same fate, also, pretty generally 
awaits us, when we venture to pronounce 
such sentiments repugnant to Scripture 
and to common sense. To such an ex- 
tent did the late erratic, though transcend- 
antly gifted Irving urge this claim, that 
he considered himself harshly treated 
and persecuted by his opponents, because 
they affirmed that his views could not be 
supported by their Confession of Faith, — 
a measure which he even seriously at- 
tempted. The Mormon prophets of our 
own country, and the Christyans and 
Campbellites, furnish other and not less 
remarkable instances. 

It is not our intention to speculate upon 
this topic. But this abuse of public con- 
fidence appears to us, to annihilate the 
distinction between truth and error, at 
least so far as respects everything that 
pertains to its discovery and profession. 
It makes it equall}?- meritorious for an in- 
dividual to profess and suffer for error, as 
for truth. It assumes that man is not 
culpable for error, and loses sight of the 
fact that Paul has placed " heresies^^ along 
with other ^^ works of the flesh" with 
" lasciviousness, idolatry, hatred, envy- 
ings, drunkenness," etc.; and involves 
the absurd supposition that the Atheist's 
honesty ought not to have been doubted 
when he affirmed that he could " prove 



AND REPUTED. 



9 



anything by the Bible, except that there 
is no God." 

It is clearly a doctrine of the Bible, 
that error in religion is, to say the least, 
much more the result of depravity of 
heart, than of honest and conscientious 
mistake. And though we cannot here 
pause to ascertain it, yet, there certainly 
must be some principle which will justi- 
fy an individual in speaking decidedly, 
in terms of reprehension, of that which 
is clearly contrary to the word of God, 
without being justly the subject of cen- 
sure. Surely if there are errorists, and 
if mankind are furnished with the means 
of ascertaining truth ; if Christians are 
called upon to contend earnestly for the 
truth originally revealed; there must be 
some principle that justifies them in per- 
emptorily refusing all such demands up- 
on their christian fellowship and charity 
as are thus made by every one who choo- 
ses to represent himself as inspired of 
Heaven. 

But errorists themselves practically 
concede the existence of such a rule or 
principle as the one referred to. The 
Mormons, the Christyans, the Puseyites, 
and the Perfectionists, perpetually admo- 
nish all the churches in the land, hither- 
to regarded as Christian, that they are in 
dangerous error, that they are not Chris- 
tian, but are corrupt, anti-apostolic, and 
have nothing to look for at the hand of 
God but his uncovenanted mercies. The 
Campbellites assume precisely the same 
position, as we shall see hereafter. Nor 
is this all : for, if we except the fact that 
the Campbellites and Christyans have, 
within a few years past, professed an 
agreement on all the essential points of 
their systems, they, with the utmost bitter- 
ness denounce each other. Of this de- 
nunciatory spirit, we shall present here 
one brief example, from the writings of 
Mr.' Campbell. He is speaking of the 
Mormons, (who, we doubt not, it w^ill 
be admitted, before we are through with 
this discussion, have quite as valid claims 
to be regarded as Christians, as Mr. 
Campbell himself,) and thus remarks : * 
" I would say nothing to the disparage- 
ment of this deluded people. But 'tis a 
disgrace to the christian character, to the 
name, to any man who has ever read a 

* See Mr. CamphelVs Millenial Harbinger for April, 
1834, Vol, V. p. 148. 

2 



Bible, to believe that absurd book, called 
' the book of Mormon.' It is a matter of 
astonishment and grief, to think of a man 
in the exercise of reason, for one moment 
to give credit to this wretched bundle of 
lies. It must have been written by an 
Atheist, who did not believe that God 
would ever call him to judgment for ly- 
ing in his name. A Yankee trick to 
make money. The author must have 
studied barrenness of sentiment and ex- ! 
pression, a poverty of style, without an 
equal in the English language for the 
purpose of deception," etc. 

Mr. Campbell, therefore, in the most 
unequivocal manner, admits the exis- 
tence of the principle, or rule referred to. 
We also admit it. He clearly and fully, 
in this extract, asserts the doctrine of ac- 
countability for our opinions, — for he 
says that •' it is a disgrace to any man 
who has ever read a Bible to believe 
that absurd book called the Book of Mor- 
mon." He says this, while he knows at 
the same time, that multitudes have re- 
ceived that book as divine. He denounces 
them as a " deluded people," and affirms 
that the Mormon book " must have been 
written by an Atheist," that its fabrica- 
tion was " a Yankee trick to make mo- 
?iey." Thus does he arraign the sinceri- 
ty, and impugn the motives of a sect which 
is certainly as sincere and as respectable 
as his own. Nor has he, to my knowl- 
edge, ever been threatened with a civil 
prosecution for doing so. But w^hen I, 
after having been abused by him and his 
followers, and challenged to discuss their 
peculiarities, presented a calm statement 
of their views, and employing therein 
language in no way as denunciatory as 
the foregoing, the only argument with 
which I am met, is a threat from Mr. 
Campbell of a civil prosecution ; the 
rest of his reply is all abuse and scur- 
rility. 

Now I am as sincere as Mr. Campbell 
could have been (in his foregoing re- 
marks on Mormonism,) when I say, that 
agreeably to the word of God, the Camp-= 
bellite system of theology, in all its essen- 
tial features, possesses no just claims to be 
regarded as the religion of the Cross : that 
it is essentially " another Gospel ; and 
that they who are its adherents, are guil- 
ty before God, for sustaining a system of 
pernicious and soul-destroying delusion. 



10 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



That it is a shame for christians to suffer 
themselves to be deluded thus, by a sys- 
tem which has no more valid claims to 
be regarded as the religion of Christ, 
than Mormonism. And that the transla- 
tion of the New Testament by Mr. C. is 
as gross a deception upon the credulity of 
the public, as the Book of Mormon itself 
And my right to make these statements 
(which I do in perfect good nature,) is the 
same with Mr. C.'s right to say what he 
has said in the foregoing extract. If I can 
sustain these statements, all will admit 
that they ought to be made, and that the 
public ought to be disabused. If I can- 
not, the public will not be slow in award- 
ing to both Mr. C. and myself ample jus- 
tice. The subject at the present time, and 
especially in those parts of the country 
where Campbellism prevails, is of the 
deepest importance, and demands this in- 
vestigation. And all we ask of the rea- 
der, is a patient and candid attention to the 
facts and arguments which follow. 

Had we even employed the most bitter 
invective and denunciation in treating 
upon this subject, Mr. C. is the very last 
man who ought to complain. For never 
was more cruel and unprincipled de- 
nunciation employed by any one, than 
he has employed in speaking of the min- 
istry, and evangelical denominations of 
christians in this country. Because he 
and Rev. Wm. Kinkade, and Joseph 
Smith (the Mormon,) have set up for Re- 
formers, they think that they must em- 
ploy abuse and scurrility, as Calvin 
and Luther did. But we yield to Mr. C. 
all the advantage that such weapons of 
controversy can afford ; and shall proceed 
with the discussion without them. 

Because Mr. C. entertains some doc- 
trines in common with evangelical chris- 
tians, he endeavors to represent those who 
controvert his peculiarities, as controvert- 
ing every doctrine which he professes to 
believe. But this is most uncandid ; and 
it is too easily seen through to do much 
injury. I freely admit that he does hold 
and advocate some precious truths of the 
Bible — truths, which, if carried out to 
their legitimate results, would utterly ex- 
plode his pernicious peculiarities. But 
the same remark may be made of the 
Mormons, of Socinus, of Priestly, and of 
ail errorists. 

It is a matter of regret, that the propa- 



gators of erroneous doctrines in a chris- 
tian community, are in general, so very 
reserved or ambiguous in their communi- 
cations, that not unfrequently a consider- 
able length of time is suffered to elapse, 
before even their most constant auditors 
become fully acquainted with the distinc- 
tive fundamental principles of their sys- 
tem. This fact is notorious to all who 
have ever had an opportunity to notice for 
themselves. And while it is a fact, that 
such errorists uniformly agree to villify 
other denominations, and to misrepresent 
their doctrines, it is rarely indeed that they 
venture immediately and unreservedly, to 
make known their own sentiments, or 
even to give a tangible statement of the 
points whereon they do differ from those 
whom they decry. They are fully satis- 
fied with making the general statement 
that other denominations are corrupt, and 
the like ; leaving it to be inferred, that of 
course, they are the very reverse. 

We are led to these remarks by having 
observed the silence, respecting many of 
their distinguishing tenets, which is ob- 
served by the advocates of Campbellism. 
This silence is indeed surprising, if 
we consider the numerous declarations 
made by them to the effect that " the gos- 
pel as promulgated by Mr. Campbell is 
the same as was propagated by Christ 
and his apostles ;" * — that " all other pro- 
testant churches are daughters of the mo- 
ther of harlots ;" — and tkat " altogether 
they constitute the Babylon of Revela- 
tion, out of which all true Christians are 
commanded to flee." Such declarations 
as these are teeming in their writings and 
discourses. Yet they keep their own 
sentiments concealed, either by not decla- 
ring them openly, or by the employment 
of a phraseology so ambiguous that few 
can be found, aside from their own de- 
nomination, who can give a rational ac- 
count of even a few of the distinctive fea- 
tures of the system. Hence the frequent 
enquiry, " What are the sentiments of 
this people ?" Distinctive indeed must 
be their sentiments, if they alone enter- 
tain in its purity the true gospel of Christ, 
while all other denominations lie exposed 
to the wrath of God. 



* " I do most unhesitatingly avow my conviction that 
not one single truth or fact of the gospel, as taught by 
him (Mr. Campbell) can be disproved." See Mill. Har, 
Vol. V. p. 174. 



AND REFUTED. 



11 



Of later years, however, Mr. Campbell 
himself has become somewhat more em- 
boldened in the advancement of his views. 
Backed as he is by a numerous host of 
followers, he no longer feels that restraint 
which formerly held him in check, and 
prevented his coming fearlessly before the 
public with his sj^stem in a tangible 
form. Thousfh it is still true that his 
doctrines are, to a great extent, crude and 
undigested, and wrapped in a tedious ver- 
bosity, yet any one who has the requisite 
patience to wade through his tomes, may 
reasonably entertain the prospect of ulti- 
mately detecting his sentiments. 

That we may avoid misrepresenting 
this denomination, (a conduct of which 
they constantly complain, and often with- 
out the least reason) we shall, as far as 
possible, employ their own language in 
the expression of their views. 

Before proceeding, however, to a more 
extended presentation of the sentiments of 
Mr. C. and his followers, it will be proper 
here to give a brief synopsis of their pe- 
culiar views. As remarked above, we 
have no controversy with them on any 
other points but these. They are as 
follows : 

1. Immersion in water is essential to 
Christian baptism. 

2. Faith is only historic ; and saving 
faith is simply a recognition of Christ as 
the Messiah. 

3. Conversion to God is by immersion. 

4. Forgiveness of sin, or justification 
can only be had through immersion. 

5. Regeneration is essential to salva- 
tion, and in Bible language is the same 
thing as immersion. 

These views we shall consider and re- 
fute. After which we shall consider the 
Unitarianism of this sect ; review their 
version of the New Testament ; and con- 
clude with a review of the Campbellite 
controversy, especially since the publica- 
tion of the Essay on Campbellism in the 
American Biblical Repository of 1839. 
And if in any of our statements, we do 
Mr. Campbell the least injustice, and he 
will point out our mistake or misappre- 
hension, we shall at once thankfully re- 
tract it, and make the correction publicly. 
We should be sorry to do him a thou- 
sandth part of the injustice which he has 
done to us. For though his scholarship 
is neither extensive, nor accurate, his tal- 



ents are respectable, and his influence con- 
siderable, and ought not to be underrated. 



CHAPTER 11. 

THE PECULIAR AND FUNDAMENTAL PRIN- 
CIPLES OF CAMPBELLISM POINTED OUT. 

With regard to. the subjoined extracts^ 
the reader will observe that they are not 
merely repetitions of the passages quoted 
in the Biblical Repository in our former 
essay. Some of those are retained, but 
to give the public the fullest proof that no 
injustice has been done to Mr. C, we 
have taken the pains to read over, among 
others of his w^ritings, a publication of 
his, which was issued by him subsequent- 
ly to any quoted in my former essay. 
Following the example of the Socinian 
Servetus (the great calumniator of the 
Reformation and of the Lord Jesus,) he 
named it " Christianity Restored.''^* It 
has been latterly re-published under a 
new title ; but it is the same book ; (see 
Mill. Har. July, 1839, p. 336) and as- 
serts all Mr. C.'s peculiar views, as pre- 
sented in the subjoined passages. 

SECTION I 

Mr. CampbeWs view of Baptism. 

With Mr. C. there can be no baptism 
without immersion. He, in his version 
of the New Testament, generally trans- 
lates the w^ords Baptize and Baptism,, by 
Immerse and Immersion. And in his 
Mill. Har. of April, 1834, p. 177, he 
says, " No man of learning and candor, 
can, in the face of this generation, say 
that immersion is not commanded ; nor 
can he, by any mode of reasoning, find 
even a probability that one infant or adult 
was sprinkled— (and no one pretends that 
it was commanded) by Jesus or his Apos- 
tles." In fact, his whole scheme, and 
the analogies by which he illustrates it, 
generally proceed upon this baseless as- 
sumption. 

He has also asserted repeatedly in his 
controversy with me, that I am " an im- 

* The notorious book in which Servetus attacked the 
doctrine of the Trinity and other doctrines of the Re- 
formed church, he designated Restitutio Christianismi, 
or Christianity Restored : and Mr. Campbell's book 18 
equally deserving of the $ame title. 



13 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



mersed Presbyterian minister, and there- 
fore go for immersion as baptism." Har. 
for 1839, p. 507. And on p. 503, he asserts 
it in the following language. Referring to 
myself, he says, " I am told, too, he has 
been imimersed for the remission of sins. 
I presume it must be true ! What say 
you, Mr. Landis ? Then Campbellism 
IS a terrible thing, when even its warm- 
est foes are constrained, even in the ago- 
ny of their struggles, to affirm all its 
most peculiar and offensive dogmata. 
Mr. Landis, as far as he is gone, is pret- 
ty orthodox on baptism for remission of 
sins," &LC. 

This statement had considerable weight 
with many of Mr. C.'s followers ; and 
I wrote to him informing him of his 
error, and requesting him to correct it. 
This, however, he was unwilling to do, 
(though he promised me to do it,) for it 
relieved him, (in the estimation of many,) 
of the force of my statements. Hence, 
though he was apprized of the falsehood, 
and had promised me to correct it, many 
of his followers still suppose it to be true 
that I " go for immersion as baptism," 
and " was immersed for the remission of 
sins." I corrected the misrepresentation, 
in a brief note in the Biblical Repository 
of July, 1840, p. 208, from which the 
following is an extract. ' I never wrote 
a line advocating immersion as baptism ; 
and since I have been a Pasdobaptist 
have never advocated that mode of admin- 
istering the ordinance. The facts which 
Mr.C. has thus cruelly distorted,are these: 
My parents were Baptists. I, when very 
young, united with the Baptist Church, 
and was, of course, immersed. A few 
years after, and while yet under age, I 
became convinced that the views of my 
Baptist brethren, respecting the subject 
and mode of baptism were erroneous ; 
whereupon I left them and united with 
the Presb3rterian Church ; and since that 
hour I have ever been a strenuous advo- 
cate of the views I then embraced. — 
Such are the facts upon which Mr. C. 
declares that I " go for immersion as 
baptism," and "affirm the dogmas of his 
system." 

But distinct from all these considera- 
tions, it is important, in a professed exam- 
ination of Mr. C.'s system, to consider 
the subject and mode of Baptism. And 
in fact, Mr. C. has erected his whole the- 



ory, upon the mere mode ; and, as above 
remarked, the analogical proof which he 
brings to sustain it is derived from thence. 
These considerations must plead our 
apology for discussing this subject (as we 
shall briefly do when we come to exam- 
ine his arguments, &c.) in a work design- 
ed to be catholic in its aspect and spirit. 
Thus indeed it should be, as far as possi- 
ble ; as he whom it opposes, is one, who 
like Ishmael, has his hand against every 
man. All Evangelical denominations, as 
will be shown hereafter, share his denun- 
ciations ; and in opposing him have been 
generally united. We trust, however, 
that the circumstances stated above, will 
justify our departure from the principle 
in this one particular : for it will be seen, 
as we proceed, that he builds his whole 
hydrostatic structure upon baptism by 
immersion. 

The subjoined extracts from his '• Chris- 
tianity Restored^'' will at once exhibit 
the importance which he attaches to this 
mode of administering baptism ; and will 
justify the course which we propose to 
adopt : " The Saviour commanded them 
(says Mr. C, referring to the Apostles,) 
to assure mankind that every one who 
believed the gospel, and was immersed^ 
should be saved. And connecting faith 
with immersion, Peter averred that im- 
mersion saved us, purifying the con- 
science through the resurrection of Jesus." 
p. 190. " And here it is worthy of notice 
that the Apostles, in all their speeches, 
and replies to interrogatories, never com- 
manded an enquirer to pray, read, or 
sing, as preliminary to coming ; but al- 
ways commanded and proclaimed immer- 
sion as the first duty^ or the first thing to 
be done, after a belief of the testimony." 
p. 214. " One thing we do know, that 
none can rationally, and with certainty, 
enjoy the peace of God, and the hope of 
heaven, but they who intelligently, and 
in full faith, are born of water, or immers- 
ed for the remission of their sins." p. 240. 
He says further, that the Apostles 
" taught all the disciples to consider not 
only themselves as saved persons ; but 
all whom they saw, or knew to be im- 
mersed into the Lord Jesus. They salu- 
ted every one, on his coming out of the 
water, as saved, and recorded him as 
such." p. 214,215.. 



AND REFUTED. 



13 



SECTION n. 

7%e Campbellite view of saving faith, 

and of the object of faith. 

In stating the principles of his sect, 
Mr. C. remarks : " The principle which 
was inscribed upon our banners, when 
we withdrew from the ranks of the sects, 
was, ' Faith in Jesus, as the true Messiah, 
and obedience to him as our Sovereign, 
and King, the only test of Christian 
character, and the only bond of Chris- 
tian union, communion, and co-operation ; 
irrespective of all creeds, opinions, com- 
mandments, and traditions of men.^' See 
Christianity Restored, p. 9. Yet, at the 
same time, Mr. C. must be the judge 
whether due obedience is rendered ; for 
he will recognize none as disciples of 
Christ, who have not been immersed. — 
This is the " Catholicity^' of his system. 

And on p. 254, and elsewhere, he 
pointedly condemns the doctrine of justi- 
fication by faith ; and with the Papists 
and Puseyites asks, "why assume that 
faith alone is the reason of our justifica- 
tion ?" And as illustrative of his aban- 
donment of this cardinal doctrine of the 
reformation, he, in the first two editions 
of his version of the New Testament, 
(which he still has the unblushing dis- 
honesty to inscribe to Doctors Campbell, 
Macknight and Doddridge,) rendered Jas. 
2, 14, after Macknight as follows : " What 
is the advantage, my brethren, if any one 
say he have faith, but have not works ? 
can THIS faith save him ?" * But in the 
later editions he throws out the demon- 
stration, (which the original requires,) 
and simply has it, " Can faith save him?" 
and makes the reader think that this is 
Macknight' s version. 

Again, in his Christianity Restored, p. 
238, he illustrates this view as follows : 
" It is not our faith in God's promises of 
remission, but our going down into the 
water that obtains the remission of sins." 
And on p. Ill, " Faith never can be 
more than the receiving of testimony as 
true, or the belief of testimony ; and if 
the testimony be written, it is called his- 
tory — though it is as much history when 
flowing from the tongue as when flowing 
from the pen." 

He also repeatedly asserts and defends 

• M« ^uYATcu « ma-TlC a-MTctt atyTOV 5 



the assertion, that to believe Jesus Christ 
to be the Messiah, is to believe on him to 
the saving of the soul. See Christian 
Baptist,Yol III., No. 9., and Mill. Har. 
Extra, for 1839 ; and in reference to it, 
he says : " That is saving faith (for 
there is but one faith,) which purifies the 
heart and works by love." 

Another popular writer of this sect, in 
a work entitled " A Mirror of Ismatic 
Religions," (a work highly approved 
and recommended by Mr. C.) in refer- 
ence to this same subject, speaks as fol- 
lows : 

" The catholic church of Christ (not 
of Rome) is held and compacted togeth- 
er by the belief of this truth, that Jesus 
is the Messiah, the Son of God, the liv- 
ing one, and that God raised him from 
the dead on the third day — their belief, if 
I may so term it, comprehends, in the 
words of Paul to the Ephesians, 'the 
one Lord, one faith, and one immersion,' 
hence they are all of one mind, one judg- 
ment, one spirit, — and not being required 
by their master to be of one opinion, 
every one concedes to his brother his own 
particular views." Pages 11, 12. 

In his Preface to his New Testament, 
Mr. Campbell repeats this view : " When 
one question of fact is answered in the 
affirmative, the way of happiness is laid 
open, and all doubts on the nature of true 
piety and humanity are dissipated. The 
fact is a historic one, and this question is 
of the same nature. It is this — Was 
Jesus the Nazarene, the Son and Apostle 
of God ? This question is capable of 
being converted into various forms, such 
as — Are the subsequent narratives true ? 
Did Jesus actually and literally rise from 
the dead after being crucified and inter- 
red ? Did he ascend into heaven in the 
presence of his disciples ? Is he consti- 
tuted the Judge of the living and the 
dead ? Or, was he an imposter and a 
deceiver of men? It may be proposed 
in many a form ; but it is still a unit, and 
amounts to this — Is Jesus the Nazarene, 
the Son of God, the Apostle of the Fath- 
er, the Saviour of men ? When this 
question is answered in the affirmative, 
our duty, our salvation, and our happi- 
ness are ascertained and determined. See 
also. Mill. Har. Vol. VI. p. 82. 

And in his reply to me, Mr. C, quo- 
ting this last extract, admits its doctrine 



14 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



and says : " To this I fully subscribe." 
Extra for 1839, p. 488. 

It is, however, no unusual thing for 
Mr. C. and his disciples to advocate both 
sides of a question — and then when you 
controvert or condemn one of their opin- 
ions in respect to it, they charge you 
with misrepresentation, and immediately 
quote passages where they have asserted 
the contrary doctrine. The reader who 
would see some amusing specimens of 
this manoeuvering, is referred to Mr. C.'s 
review of my former essay, and to my 
reply thereto, as published in the Bibli- 
cal Repos. of April and July, 1840. — 
Hence it is, also, that he so frequently 
denounces " Trinitarianism and Unitari- 
anism," see Mill. Har. Vol. 6, p. 110, 
and Extra, p. 511, for 1839: Christiani- 
ty Restored, p. 124, 125, and Biblic. Re- 
pos. for April 1840, p. 491. 

Thus also, has he proceeded with re- 
gard to faith. For notwithstanding his 
repeated assertion that there is but one 
faith, and that this is simply the belief of 
testimony, either oral or written, (see ubi 
Supra,) he says, in Mill. Har., Vol. III., 
p. 110, " Faith ranked among the fruits 
of the Spirit, is jidelity.^^ And in Extra 
for 1839, p. 485, he maintains this same 
view—" We do indeed plead guilty of the 
charge : It is a true bill." And yet in 
the Harbinger for 1833, p. 42, he makes 
a distinction, and intimates as though he 
questioned his own definition : " Faith is, 
by us, usually defined, ' the belief of tes- 
timony.' This is the definition of the 
■term. The thing is, however, confi- 
dence in testimony — confidence in the 
person or thing testified." Then in Vol. 
III. Number 11. p. 505, he says, with 
me^ faith is the belief of the glorious facts 
of the Gospel— a firm persuasion that 
they are true, which persuasion is always 
ACCoiMPANiED with confidence in them, 
and a hearty consent of the mind to 
them." 

It is the usual custom of the preachers 
of this sect to ridicule in the most inde- 
cent manner, the exposition which evan- 
gelical denominations give of faith. And 
they perpetually assert that there is but 
one faith, which is simply the belief of 
facts. I have heard the idea repeatedly 
scouted by them, that faith can be any 
thing more than mere belief or assent to 
testimony. It may be of service to them 



all, therefore, to ponder the foregoing ex- 
tracts, in which Mr. C. first asserts that 
there is but one faith, and refers it to 
simple belief—the belief of a fact. Then 
he says that this is the import of the term 
only, and that the thing itself means 
something else. And of this something 
else, he gives two opposite definitions, 
viz: '■^ fidelity, ^^ and '•'' confidence.''^ He 
then, last of all, makes it something still 
different, and says that it is something 
" which is always accompanied with con- 
fidence.' ' S uch is his men tal philosophy. 
It is not our purpose here, to discuss 
faith ; we are merely presenting the doc- 
trine of the Campbellites respecting it. — 
Mr. C. accuses me of " blundering" in 
respect to this- subject, as he does all 
evangelical christians; and he says of 
me, as he has often said of others before, 
"I never read a more clumsy, senseless, 
and unmeaning description of faith 
than that given by Mr. L." Upon this 
score, however, it is presumed, that he 
and his followers will hereafter keep si- 
lence. It might be useful for them, oc- 
casionally, to read Matt. 7, 1 — 5. 

SECTION m. 

The Campbellite view of Conversion. 

Referring to those who were converted 
in the Apostle's times, Mr. C. remarks : 
" Neither praying, singing, reading, re- 
penting, sorrowing, resolving, nor wait- 
ing to be better, was the converting act. 
Immersion alone was the act of turning 
to God. Hence, in the commission to 
convert the nations, the only institution 
mentioned after proclaiming the gospel, 
was the immersion of the believers, as the 
divinely authorized way of carrying out 
and completing the work. And from the 
day of Pentecost, to the final Amen in the 
revelation of Jesus Christ, no person was 
said to be converted, or to turn to 
God, until he was buried in and rais- 
ed up out of the water." Christianity 
Restored, p. 214. " No man can, scrip- 
turally, be said to be converted to God, 
until he is immersed."p. 215. ' Into Christ 
is a phrase only applicable to conver- 
sion, immersion, or regeneration, or what 
is called putting on Christ," &c. p. 193. 
" Whatever the act of faith may be, it 
necessarily becomes the line of discrimi- 
nation between the two states before de- 



AND REFUTED 



15 



scribed. On this side, and on that, man- 
kind are in quite different states. On the 
one side they are pardoned, justified, sanc- 
tified, reconciled, adopted, and saved : on 
the other, they are in a state of condemna- 
tion. This act is sometimes called immer- 
sion^ regeneration^ conversion ; and that 
this may appear obvious to all, we shall 
be at some pains to confirm and illustrate 
it," Chris. Rest. p. 197. And on the 
next page he lays down the proposition, 
" that it is not faith^ hut an act resulting 
from faith which changes our condition ;'' 
which act he avers to be immersion in 
water, " sometimes called conversion ;" 
and affirms " faith by itself neither justi- 
fies, sanctifies, nor purifies." p. 198. 

Then on p. 201, we have the following 
most edifying passages. Referring to 
Peter's address in the Portico, (Acts 3,) 
he says, " Why the Apostle Peter should 
have used ' converted,' or ' turning to 
Ood,' instead of ' be immersed,' is to the 
candid and unprejudiced reader of this 
narrative, very plain. After Pentecost, 
the disciples immersed on that day, hav- 
ing turned to God through Jesus, were 
tpoken of by their brethren, as disciples, 
or converted to Jesus. The unbelieving 
Jews, soon after Pentecost, knew that the 
disciples called the immersed ' converted;^ 
and immersion being the act of faith 
which drew the line of demarcation be- 
tween Christians and Jews, nothing could 
be more natural than to call the act of im- 
mersion the converting of a Jew. The 
time intervening between these discourses 
was long enough to introduce and famil- 
iarize this style in the metropolis ; so that 
when a Christian said, ' Be converted, or 
* Turn to God, every Jew knew, the 
act of putting on the Messiah to be 
intended. After the immersion of some 
Gentiles into the faith, in the house and 
neighborhood of Cornelius, it was report- 
ed that the Gentiles were converted to 
God. Thus, the Apostles, in passing 
through the country, gave great joy to 
the disciples from among the Jews, ' tell- 
ing them of the convejsion' or immersion 
of the Gentiles. Acts 15:3. Indeed, in 
a short time it was a summary way of 
representing the faith, reformation, and 
immersion of disciples, by using one word 
for all. Thus, '■ All the inhabitants of 
Sharon and Lydda turned' or ' were con- 
verted to the Lord." Acts 9j that is, they 
were immersed. 



This long extract exhibits a fair speci- 
men of Mr. C.'s critical ability ; and if 
any one acquainted with the Bible can 
read it without a smile, he can do what I 
cannot. And yet Mr. C. is as grave and 
serious in it as Rhadamanthus himself 
And he adds with equal gravity, '• No 
person was said to be converted until he 
was immersed ; and all persons who 
were immersed, were said to be convert- 
ed." p. 204. And whatever else Mr. 
C. holds in respect to conversion, he pro- 
fesses, at least, to entertain no sentiments 
which are not perfectly consistent with 
the foregoing doctrine. 

Now we do not like to be compelled 
to refute both the negative and affirma- 
tive of a proposition : and yet Mr. C. 
and his followers act as though they ex- 
pected us to do it. His whole theory of 
immersion runs him into the most pre- 
posterous contradictions conceivable. — 
We shall remark more fully upon this 
topic, when we come to refute his views 
of justification and regeneration. And 
yet we cannot pass from this point with- 
out expressing our admiration that Mr. 
C should publish in his Harbinger, (not- 
withstanding the foregoing conclusive 
statements,) that " Baptists" are "con- 
verted" in some other way than by im- 
mersion. If immersion be conversion, 
(as Mr. C. so plainly declares above,) 
then how are Baptists converted when 
they become Campbellites ? That they 
do become converted, then, any one can 
see by turning to Mill. Har. Vol. V. 
p. 187. And yet they are not re-immer- 
sed. How then are they converted? 
Immersion and conversion, says Mr. C, 
are the same thing, and yet Baptists are 
not converted till say ten, fifteen or twen- 
ty years after they are immersed. This 
is something that I cannot explain ; nor 
can I find any explanation of it in all 
Mr. C.'s writings. It certainly seems 
mysterious. 

SECTION IV. 

The Campbellite view of Justification 
or the remission of Sins. 

We have already seen that this sect 
wholly deny the doctrine of justification 
by faith. In fact, faith, in their system, 
as will be seen presently, has no real 
connection with justification or forgive- 
ness, for an individual may exercise 



16 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



true faith, and if he be baptized in any- 
other way than by immersion, he is still 
" unforgiven, unconverted, unregener- 
ate," according to the doctrines of this 
sect. 

Respecting the forgiveness of sins, Mr. 
C. uses the following language: "Be- 
fore we are justified in Christ, live 
in Christ, or fall asleep in Christ, we 
must come, be introduced, or immersed 
into Christ. Chris. Rest. p. 193. And 
hence it is that Campbellite preachers, 
when about to immerse their disciples 
use such revolting language as the fol- 
lowing : " Come, I will now introduce 
you into the kingdom." See Mill. Har. 
for 1835, p. 141, and for 1840, p. 564, 
565. 

So also in Chris. Rest., p. 238, Mr. C. 
says : " It is not our faith in God's pro- 
mise of remission, but our going down 
into the water, that obtains remission of 
sins." And again, " One thing we do 
know, that none can rationally and with 
certainty, enjoy the peace of God, and 
the hope of Heaven, but they who intelli- 
gently, and in full faith, are born of wa- 
ter, or immersed for the remission of 
sins." p. 240. He asserts at the same 
time, however, that without believing 
Christ to be the true Messiah, no one " re- 
ceives the remission of sins in immersion." 
p. 239. Again, on p. 241, he says " we 
wish to leave before the mind of the dili- 
gent reader, the great importance attached 
to christian immersion, as presented in the 
Evangelists, the Acts and the Epistles. 
1 . In the Evangelists, it is called the for- 
giveness of sins." &-C. "Down into the wa- 
ter you were led. Then the name of the 
Holy One upon your faith, and upon 
your person, was pronounced. You 
were then buried in the water under that 
name. It closed itself upon you. In its 
womb you were concealed. Into the 
Lord, as in the water, you were immers- 
ed. But into the water you continued 
not. Of it you were born, and from it 
you came forth, raised with Jesus, and 
rising in his strength. There your con- 
sciences were released, for there your old 
sins were washed away." Christ. Rest. 
p. 243. Hence it is, that in Mr. C.'s 
Mill. Har., Such passages as the follow- 
ing are to be met with: Our Psedobap- 
tist friends say, that we make too much 
of the water. Be that as it may, I can 



assure them, that I have felt more peace 
and comfort in six months since, than in 
ten years before I was immersed, as I am 
now able to rejoice in all things, giving 
glory to God for opening my eyes and 
enabling me to do his will," {i. e. to be 
immersed.) See Mill. Har. V. p. 188, 
for 1834. 

Again : In. his Christian Baptist, he 
says : " Under the former economy, blood 
was necessary to forgiveness ; and under 
the new economy, water is necessary." — 
Vol. VII. p. 163. Then in Chris. Rest., 
p. 213, he says : " And the great argu- 
ment, pertinent to our object, in this long 
examination of conversion and regenera- 
tion, is, that which we conceive to he the 
most apparent of all other conclusions, 
viz : that remission of sins, or coming 
into a state of acceptance, being one of 
the present immunities of Heaven, can- 
not BE ENJOYED BY ANY PERSON BEFORE 

IMMERSION. For Jesus expressly de- 
clares, that he has not given the privilege 
of sons to any but to those born of God. 
Jus. 1—12, If, then, the present forgive- 
ness of sins be a privilege, and a right of 
those under the new constitution, in the 
kingdom of Jesus ; and if being born 
again, or being born oi water and of the 
Spirit, is necessary to admission ; and 
if being born of water means immersion^ 
as clearly proved by all witnesses ; then 
remission of sins cannot in this life, be 
received or enjoyed previous to 
IMMERSION. If there be any proposi- 
tion regarding any item of the christian 
institution, which admits of clearer proof, 
or fuller illustration than this one, I have 
yet to learn where it may be found." 

From such assertions as the foregoing, 
I had stated in my Essay, in the Reposi- 
tory p. 105, that Mr. Campbell and his 
friends teach that immersion in water is 
" absolutely essential to forgiveness of 
sin." And to give the reader an idea of 
the two-sidedness of this celebrated con- 
trovertist, I will here quote from his reply 
to the allegation : " I am no less traves- 
tied and caricatured — no less calumnia- 
ted on the subject of remission of sins as 
connected with baptism, than on the sub- 
ject of baptism as connected with the 
whole renovation, or process of regener- 
ation. A more flagitious perversion I 
never met with than that expressed in 
the third dogma imputed to me. ^ Mr. 



AND REPUTED. 



17 



Campbell and his friends teach that im- 
mersion in water is absolutely essential 
to forgiveneness of sins.' The most cha- 
ritable construction that I can put upon 
this, is, that Mr. L. does not understand 
his own language, or select his terms 
with discrimination. Absolutely essen- 
tial to forgiveness 1 This is equal to 'no 
baptism, no forgiveness' in time or eterni- 
ty, for man, woman, or child. I never 
thought, uttered, or wrote such an idea." 
Mill. Har. for 1839. p. 392, and Biblic. 
Repos. for April 1840 p. 484. 

Now which representation of Mr. C.'s 
are we to take as the true one ? for they 
are utterly irreconcileable. He " never 
thought, uttered, or wrote such an idea, 
as that immersion in water is absolutely 
essential to the remission of sin ?" Let 
the reader cast his eye over the foregoing 
extracts, and he will not need that I should 
accuse Mr. C. of uttering a most gross 
and unblushing falsehood, in order to re- 
present me as slandering him. I should 
never be guilty of imputing to a man an 
inference from his opinions, if he dis- 
claimed it. But this is not the case here. 
For Mr. C. says, that under the Gospel, 
" Water is necessary to forgiveness " — 
and that forgiveness, or " remission of 
sins CANNOT, in this life, be received or 
enjoyed, previous to immersion." And 
this assertion, he says, is susceptible of 
the clearest proof; as much so, as any 
proposition of the Gospel. And not on- 
ly so, but he is perpetually asserting it — 
As for example, after showing that no 
one can 'possibly become a disciple of 
Christ except by immersion, he adds : " It 
is scarcely necessary to remark here, 
that, as the disciples of Christ are declar- 
ed to be in a pardoned, justified, sanctified, 
reconciled, adopted, and saved state, they 
are the only persons in such a state ; and 
ALL OTHERS are in an unpardoned, un- 
justified, unsanctified, unreconciled, una- 
dopted, and lost stateP Chris. Rest. p. 
192. And on p. 202, he says again: 
" All these testimonies concur with each 
other in presenting the act of faith — 
CHRISTIAN IMMERSION, frequently called 
conversion, as that act, inseparably con- 
nected WITH the remission OF SINS ; or 
that change of state, of which we have 
already spoken." " The forgiveness of 
sins, or a change of state, is necessarily 
connected with that act of faith called 
3 



" christian immersion," " no person is al- 
together discipled to Christ until he is 
immersed." " No person was said to be 
converted until he was immersed ; and 
all persons who were immersed,were said 
to be converted." The commission for 
converting the world teaches that immer- 
sion WAS necessary to discipleship." 

And yet this is the gentleman who af- 
firms that he never thought, uttered, or 
wrote such an idea as that immersion is 
absolutely essential to forgiveness! 

It is in reference to this " ordinance 
for remission of sins," that he uses the 
following language : " Under the gov- 
ernment of the Lord Jesus there is an 
institution for the forgiveness of sins, like 
which, there was no institution since the 
world began." " The meaning of this 
institution has been buried under the rub- 
bish of human traditions for hundreds of 
years. It was lost in the dark ages, and 
has never been, till recently, disinterred. 
Various efforts have been made, and con- 
siderable progress attended them; but 
since the grand apostacy was completed, 
till the present generation, the Gospel of 
Jesus Christ has not been laid open to 
mankind in its original plainness, simpli- 
city, and majesty." See p. 184. 

Thus modestly does he speak of him- 
self, his wonderful discovery, and his ef- 
forts relating thereto. And then with his 
usual consistency, goes laboriously to 
work to try to show that the Episcopalian 
Prayer-book, the Presbyterian Confes- 
sion, and " the Methodist Creed," along 
with the Baptist Creed, and the Confes- 
sions of Bohemia, Augsburg, Saxony, 
Wittemberg, Helvetia, Sueveland, the 
Roman church, Greek church, Calvin, 
(k-c, &c., all advocated, before he was 
born, the very sentiment which he has 
"in the present generation," "disinterred 
from the rubbish of ages." 

section v. 
The Campbellites assert that regenera- 
tion is essential to salvation, and in 
Bible language 7neans the same thing 
as immersion. 

In their views of this whole subject 
there are some most preposterous and ir- 
reconcileable inconsistencies. Yet Mr. 
C professes to advocate them all. I do not 
know however, upon what principle he 



18 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



does this ; and shall merely state the facts 
in the case, and leave the reader to form 
his own conclusions. And — 

1. The Campbellites declare that re- 
generation, or being born again, is es- 
sential to salvation. 

To prove this, they constantly quote 
John 3:5, and Tit. 3:5, and several other 
passages. As their agreement on this 
point is perfectly unanimous, it is quite 
unnecessary to tax the patience of the 
reader with more than the following pas- 
sages, along with what has been already 
presented above. 

" The subject of this great change," 
says Mr. C, " before his new birth exist- 
ed in one state ; but after it, he exists in 
another. He stands in a new relation 
to God, angels, and men. He is now 
born of God, and has the privilege of 
being a son of God, and is consequently 
pardoned, justified, sanctified, adopted, 
saved. The state which he left was a 
state of condemnation, what some call 
' the state of nature.' The state into 
which he enters is a state of favor, in 
which he enjoys all the heavenly bless- 
ings through Christ : therefore it is call- 
ed ' the kingdom of heaven.' All this 
is signified in his death, burial, and re- 
surrection with Christ ; or in his being 
born of water. Hence the necessity of 
being buried with Christ in water, that 
he may be born of water, that he may 
ENJOY the renewal of the Holy Spirit, 
and be placed under the reign of favor." 
Christ. Rest. p. 273. See also another 
passage quoted by us in Sect. 3, above. 

To the same purport he speaks also in 
his Harbinger (Vol. V. p. 146.) " He 
who loves his God, loves and consults 
his word, nor does a lover of God's 
word, find non-essentials upon its pages. 
Yet our teachers have found non-essen- 
tials among the master's commands in 
God's word. " No man of learning and 
candor can, in the face of this generation, 
say, that immersion is not commanded.'' 
p. 177. " Regeneration is, therefore the 
act of being born. Hence its connection 
always with water." Christ. Rest. p. 206. 
And in Extra No. I., p. 30, he says, 
" One thing we know, that it is not a 
difficult matter for believers to be born of 
water, [which he explains to mean being 
immersed into it, and raised up out of it,] 
and if any of them wilfully neglect or 



disdain it, we cannot hope for their eter- 
nal salvation." And again: "All that 
is now promised in the gospel, can only 
be enjoyed by those who are born again, 
and placed in the kingdom of heaven un- 
der all its influences." Christ. Restored, 
page 274. 

From these passages it is clear, that, in 
the Campbellite view, regeneration, or 
being born again, is essential to salvation. 

2. The Campbellites declare that im- 
mersion in water is essential to regenera* 
tion. 

In his Essay on Remission of Sins, in 
Christ Rest. p. 183, 256, you will find 
Mr. C. employing the terms " regenera- 
tion, conversion, and immersion," inter- 
changeably. One or two phrases will 
illustrate this : " Conversion, regeneration 
and immersion, are terms all descriptive 
of the same thing." Whatever this act 
of faith may be,— it is sometimes called im- 
mersion, regeneration, conversion. " To 
call the receiving of any spirit, or any 
influence, or energy, or any operation 
upon the heart of man, regeneration, is 
an abuse of all speech, as well as a de- 
parture from the diction of the Holy 
Spirit, who calls nothing personal regen- 
eration, except the act of immersion^^ 
p. 207. " Regeneration or immersion — 
the former referring to the import of the 
act ; and the latter term to the act itself — 
denote only the act of being born." p. 212. 
" There are three births, three kingdoms, 
and three salvations. One from the 
womb of our first mother, one from the 
water, and one from the grave. We 
enter a new world on, and not before, 
each birth. The present animal life, at 
the first birth ; the spiritual, or the life of 
God in our souls, at the second birth ; 
and the life eternal in the presence of 
God, at the third birth. And he, who 
dreams of entering the second kingdom, 
or coming under the dominion of Jesus, 
without the second birth (immersion,) 
may, to complete his error, dream of en- 
tering the kingdom of glory without a 
resurrection from the dead." p. 239. 

Again : " Our great Prophet, the Mes- 
siah, — when speaking of being born 
again — when explaining to Nicodemus 
the new birth, says, ' except a man be 
born of loater, and of the Spirit, he can- 
not enter the kingdom of God.' May 
not we, supported by such authorities, call 



AND REFUTED 



19 



that water of which a person is horn 
again^ the water or bath of regenera- 
tion ?" p. 272, 274. 

These sentiments are in exact agree- 
ment with those of all the leading men 
of this sect. Mr. Ballantine, by far the 
most learned among them, thus remarks: 
" All that you say of your modern re- 
generation, except thereby you mean 
immersion, is mere chaff before the 
wind. Here is the head and front of our 
offending : we make baptism regenera- 
tion. So does Jesus, so does Peter, and 
so does PaulJ^ Strictures, p. 29, 30. 

The author of the Mirror, before re- 
ferred to, says, p. 11, " The institution of 
immersion reminds us of the death, bu- 
rial, and resurrection of Christ ; it shows 
us the necessity of our dying to this 
world, being buried with him in immer- 
sion, and rising again to newness of 
life ; it shows us how we may become 
acceptable in the sight of God; it shows 
us how we may obtain access to his blood, 
shed for the remission of sins ; it teaches 
us to look with an eye of faith, through 
the water, at the great anti-typical sacri- 
fice for sin ; it teaches us to leave the 
kingdom of Mammon on one side of the 
water, and to enter the kingdom of Christ 
on the other," etc. 

The following illustration will make 
it manifest that these extracts do not mis- 
represent the views of this sect on the 
subject before us. 

" In religion a man may change his 
views of Jesus, and his heart may also 
be changed towards him, but unless a 
change of state ensues, he is still un- 
pardoned, unjustified, unsanctified, un- 
reconciled, unadopted, and lost to all 
christian life and enjoyment." " Begot- 
ten of God he may be, but born of God 
he cannot be, until born of water." — 
" Lavinia was the servant of Palemon, 
and once thought him a hard master. 
She changed her views of him, and her 
feelings were also changed towards him ; 
still, however, she continued in the state 
of a handmaid. Palemon offered her first 
his heart, and then his hand, and she 
accepted them. He vowed, and she vow- 
ed before witnesses, and she became his 
wife. Then, and not till then, was her 
state changed. She is no longer a ser- 
vant, — she is now a wife. No change 
of views and feelings led to this change 



of state ; for Maria, who was another 
handmaid of Palemon, changed her 
views of him, and her feelinors towards 
him, as much — nay, more — than did La- 
vinia ; yet Maria lived and died the ser- 
vant maid of Palemon and Lavinia."— 
Christ. Rest. p. 195. 

We might greatly extend these extracts, 
but think it best to permit the foregoing 
pathetic " analogy" to conclude them, 
that the immersion may remain in full 
force upon the reader's mind. 

3. Mr. Campbell and his friends de- 
clare that immersion i?i water and re- 
generation are two names for the same 
thing. 

The beautiful consistency which exists 
between this item and the preceding, the 
reader will see is not attributable to us. 
It owes its origin to the fertile genius of 
Mr. C. That he does not agree with the 
great bard of Avon, in regarding con- 
sistency as a jewel, the subjoined pas- 
sages, if compared with the preceding, 
will show. But before presenting the 
extracts confirmatory of this statement, 
we invite the reader's attention to some 
passages explanatory of Mr. C.'s theory 
of regeneration. 

" Facts, testimony, faith, feeling, ac- 
tion," says he, " are therefore bound to- 
gether by a natural and gracious neces- 
sity, which no ingenuity can separate. 
And will not every christian say, that 
when a person feels and acts according 
to the faith, or the testimony of God, he 
is a new creature — regenerate — truly 
converted to God 1 He that believes the 
facts testified in the record of God, un- 
derstands them, feels them according to 
their nature and meaning, and acts in 
correspondence with them— has under- 
gone a change of heart and of life which 
makes him a new man.'' Chris. Rest. 
266, 267. Surely no christian will ob- 
ject to this ; and if this was Mr. C.'s 
doctrine in verity, we should have no 
controversy with him on the matter. 
But it is only one of his saving clauses 
thrown in, on the principle before advert- 
ed to, as the reader will see by the fol- 
lowing extract from his next page. " If 
the kingdom of heaven only began to be 
after Jesus entered into heaven ; or, if it 
was only approaching from the ministry 
of John to the day of Pentecost, then it 
would have been preposterous indeed— 



20 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



an incongruity of ivhich no inspired man 
was ever guilty— to call any change of 
heart or life, a regeneration, or a neio 
birthP p. 268. Thus irreconcileable is 
Mr. C.'s theory at the very outset. 

On the same page, and in relation 
to the same subject, he thus speaks : 
" There is no confusion of metaphors in 
the scriptures of truth— in the dialect of 
Heaven. It is the language of Ashdod, 
it belongs to the confusion of Babel, to 
mingle and confound all figures and ana- 
logies. Hence we so often hear of being 
born again, without any allusion to fa- 
mily and kingdom ! and of regeneration 
as antecedent to faith or re^pentanceP p. 
268. " It was great to create man in the 
image of God — greater, to redeem his 
soul from general corruption ; but, great- 
est of all, to give to his mortal frame, 
incorruptible and immortal vigor," p. 
276. (Mr. Campbell should read Pope 
on the " Art of Sinking^ He continues 
thus :) " Who can think that any theory 
of the resurrection, or regeneration of 
the body, can affect the body in the 
grave ! As little can any theory affect 
the unregenerate, or those dead in tres- 
passes and in sins. A sermon upon ge- 
neration or upon natural birth, would be 
as efficacious upon those unborn, in 
bringing them into this life, as a sermon 
upon moral or physical regeneration." 
&c., &c., p. 278. " I will first candidly 
inform the reader, that they (the previous 
remarks,) were not written for his regen- 
eration, either of mind or body ; but for 
the benefit of those who are employed in 
the work of regenerating others^'' p. 279 
" Our opponents contend for a regenera- 
tion, begun and perfected before faith or 
baptism — a spiritual change of mind by 
the Holy Spirit, antecedent to either 
knowledge, faith, or repentance, of which 
infants are as susceptible as adults ; and, 
therefore, as we contend, make the Gos- 
pel of no effect. By way of reprisals, 
they would have their converts to think, 
that we go for nothing but water, and 
sarcastically call us the advocates of 
' water regeneration.' They think that 
there is something more sublime and di- 
vine in ' spirit regeneration ; ' and, there- 
fore, claim the title of orthodox. This 
calumny has been one occasion of the 
present essay, and it has occasioned that 
part of it, which gives the fullest latitude 



to the term regeneration, which analogy 
gives to the figure used by the Apostles. 
But when we speak in the exact style 
OF THE LIVING ORACLES on this subjectj 
we must represent being born again, (Jno. 
3, 5,) and regeneration, (Tit. 3, 5.) as 

RELATING TO THE ACT OF IMMERSION 
ALONE." p. 279. 

He says, however, at the same time, 
that he does not mean by regeneration, 
every thing that Evangelical Christians 
mean by it. But it is sufficient for us to 
know, that he professes to mean by im- 
mersion, or the act of immersion, all that 
the Neio Testament means by regenera- 
tion, or being born again. 

On p. 205, he thus remarks : " Wash- 
ing of regeneration and immersion, are, 
therefore, two names for the same thing." 
'• As regeneration is taught to be equiva- 
lent to ' being born again,' and understood 
to be of the same import with a new 
birth, we shall examine it under this me- 
taphor. For if immersion be equivalent 
to regeneration, and regeneration be of the 
same import with being born again, then 
being born again, and being immersed, are 
the same thing ; for this plain reason, that 
things which are equal to the same thing 
are equal to one another. All must admit 
that no person can be born again of that 
which he receives. For as no person is 
born naturally— so no person can be born 
again, or born metaphorically, of that 
which he receives. It destroys the idea, 
the figure &c., &c. This single remark, 
shows the impropriety, and inaccuracy of 
thought, or perhaps the want of thought, 
which the popular notions of regenera- 
tion sanction and sanctify." The reader 
need scarce be reminded of how beauti- 
fully this doctrine chimes in with scrip- 
ture representations, — with Jno. 3, 6, 7, 8, 
for example, where persons are said to 
be " born of the Spirit." And he may 
well ask, how is a person " born of the 
Spirit," as our Saviour affirms, when, ac- 
cording to Mr. Campbell, " no person 
can be born of that which he receives ?" 
thus absolutely denying that a person 
" receives^' the Spirit when he is " born 
of the Spirit." 

But Mr. C. continues on page 206, as 
follows: " Regeneration is, therefore, the 
act of being born. Hence its connexion 
always with water. Reader, reflect— 
what a jargon, what a confusion, have 



AND REFUTED. 



21 



the mystic doctors made of this metapho- 
rical expression, and of this topic of re- 
generation. To call the receiving of 
any Spirit^ or any influence, or energy, 
or any operation upon the heart of man, 
regeneration, is an abuse of all speech, as 
well as a departure from the diction of 
the Holy Spirit, who calls nothing per- 
sonal regeneration, except the act of im- 
mersion." And on p. 207, " He who 
cannot see the propriety of calling im- 
mersion a being born again, can see no 
propriety in any metaphor in common 
use.* « That John 3, 5, and Tit. 3, 5 
refer to immersion, is the judgment of 
all the learned Catholics and Protestants 
of every name under Heaven." This 
may illustrate the recklessness with 
which Mr. Campbell makes assertions — 
for you can scarcel}'' conceive of an as- 
sertion more utterly untrue. 

Again, on p. 272, he says, '' If the 
phrase ' water of purification' meant wa- 
ter used for the purpose of purifying a | 
person— if ' the water of separation,' 
meant water used for separating a person, 
what more natural, than ' the bath of re- 
generation' should mean water used for 
regenerating a person .'*" And again, 
" Immersion and regeneration are two 
Bible names for the same act." And 
then on p. 374, he says: " These analo- 
gies illustrate that promise of the Holy 
Spirit, given to them who reform and are 
immersed for the remission of sins. But 
as the tabernacle was first reared and de- 
dicated, the temple first build ed and fur- 
nished before the glory of the Lord filled 
it ; so the Spirit is promised and given to 
none, till they are united to the building 
of God — the Church," i. e. are immers- 
ed. And yet he says, on p. 266, 274, 
(and as above shown by extracts,) that 
immersion is the consummation of rege- 
neration.^^ And when the Campbellites 
reclaim apostates, or receive members 
from the Baptists, they never rebaptize 
them. Thus the operations of the Spirit 
and faith, are sometimes placed first, and 
sometimes last, by Mr. C. in his most 
consistent and edifying account of regen- 
eration. 

* But Mr. C. spoils his beautiful «« analogy ; " for, ad" 
dressing " the unregenerate," he says, " I say then, come 
and be regenerated ; " i. e. come and le lorn again, p. 
249. Can the unborn ^ear and o6e?/ such an exhorta- 
tion ? If so, his " analogy" is destroyed. If not, why 
exhort them to do so? '■'■Transfer such anidea to the first 
birth." See note in Chap. IV. Sect. II. of this work. 



The following passage is taken from 
p. 164. " In these days of apostacy, 
men have sought out many inventions. 
Some have attempted to get into the 
kingdom of heaven without being born 
at all. Others imagine that they can be 
born of the Spirit, without water, (i. e. 
without immersion,) and that the King is 
as well pleased with them who have been 
born Avithout a mother, as those who are 
lawfully born of father and mother." — 
And in showing the amazing power 
which immersion in water exerts upon 
the soul, and illustrating the velocity 
which it thereby acquires.Mr. C. remarks : 
" Like a strong impulse given to a ball, 
which puts it into motion, immersion for 
the forgiveness of sins carries the mind 
forward, far beyond all the experiences 
formerly demanded as preparatory to im- 
mersion. A change of state so great, 
so sensible, so complete, so sudden, oper- 
ates more like the ancient cures, than 
the cold, dark, and tedious mental regen- 
erations of the philosophising theo- 
logues." And then we have the " anal- 
ogy" or illustration, which is as follows : 
'• He that passes from Virginia into 
Pennsylvania, passes over a mere ima- 
ginary geographical line, without scarce- 
ly perceiving the transition ; but he that 
passes from Virginia into the state of 
Ohio, by swimming the o-iver, the natural 
and sensible boundary, immediately re- 
alizes the chansfe." 

These quotations, are surely more 
than sufiicient to give the reader an idea 
of this ridiculous travesty of the Gospel. 
Our desire is to do Mr. C. no injustice, 
and hence we have been so full, and we 
fear, even tediously so, in letting him 
speak for himself. We would, however, 
before passing on to the next topic, sug- 
gest to Mr. C. that his claim to original- 
ity, in this discovery of a method to 
cleanse from sin, is not so clear as to be 
undisputable. For shortly after "the 
dark ages, there was a certain old gen- 
tleman also at the head of a denomina- 
tion, who made the same discover}^ and 
affirmed that, '' If any one shall say 
that baptism is indifferent, that is, not ne- 
cessary to salvation, let him be accursed." 
Cone. Frid. Sess. VII. die mart. IIL 
1547. Can. V. de Baptismo. He affirm- 
ed many other things in relation to it, 
which have been summed up by the Ro- 



23 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 



man Catholic Bishop Hays, in his 
Abridgement of the Christian Doctrine, 
approved by Archbishop Maucal ; and 
some of them are as follows : " Baptism 
brings to the soul sanctifying- grace — 
washes away the guilt of originaF and 
actual sin — gives a new and spiritual 
birth— makes us Christians — entitles us to 
actual grace — preserves the sanctity got- 
ten at baptism, — and gives aright to eter- 
nal happiness." 

We are not sure but Mr. Campbell 
must also yield to another claimant. One 
of our missionaries some time ago meet- 
ing an old Brahmin, aged eighty, asked 
him : " Do you know how your sins are 
to be pardoned, and what will be your 
state after death?" He replied: "iW?/ 
hope is in the Ganges." And when 
further pressed, he confessed that, " If 
the Ganges could not take away his sinSy 
he knew not lohat could." See Miss. 
Her. vol. XXIX. p. 97. It would be 
amusing to speculate upon the manner in 
which a Campbellite would have treated 
the subject with the aged priest. 

We should be sorry to take away 
from Mr. Campbell all merit of originali- 
ty in relation to his illustrious discovery ; 
but as he has so boldly ventured his 
claim, it may be proper to introduce to 
his acquaintance one other old gentle- 
man, who previous to Mr. Campbell's 
having advanced his pretentions to ori- 
ginality, published the same discovery 
in a work entitled " JL Refutation of Cal- 
vinism." The reader can compare the 
following extracts, and then decide for 
himself, to whom belongs the palm. — 
" Those w^ho are baptized are immediate- 
ly translated from the curse of Adam to 
the grace of Christ. They become re- 
conciled to God — heirs of eternal happi- 
ness,— acquire a new name, a new hope, 
a new faith, a new rule of life. This 
great and wonderful change in the con- 
dition of man is, as it were, a new nature, 
a new state of existence ; and the holy 
rite by which these invaluable blessings 
are communicated, is by St. Paul figura- 
tively called regeneration, or new birth. 
The word regeneration, therefore, is in 
Scripture solely and exclusively applied 
to the one immediate effect of baptism 
once administered," etc. 

There are other competitors for this 
honor, between whom and Mr. Camp- 



bell, we cannot pretend to decide. For 
example, Bishop Doane says, that " Peter 
taught (Acts 2: 38,) that by baptism an 
individual receives the forgiveness of sin, 
and a new nature, and is made a real 
child of God, and a real member of 
Christ." " It is what Paul constantly 
taught, (Tit. 3: 5, Gal 3: 27, 1 Cor. 12: 
13.) Nay, it is the very teaching of our 
blessed Lord himself, ( Jno. 3 : 5, Mark 
16 : 16.") Brief Exam., p. 79, 80. So, 
too, says Dr. Pusey. See " One Faith" 
p. 19, by a Presbyterian. 

These, then, are the great fundamental 
doctrines of Campbellism. If we have 
been prolix in our citations, it was to 
avoid misrepresentation, and because we 
wished to hold up the system in every 
point of view, in which it is presented by 
its advocates. 

As the remaining sentiments of this 
sect, which it is our intention hereafter to 
notice, are not so strictly distinctive as 
the foregoing, we shall treat them in a 
historical, rather than a controversial 
manner. We propose, however, first, 
to subject the foregoing principles, to a 
somewhat thorough examination. The 
views entertained hereupon, especially, 
constitute the difference between this sect 
and other sects of Unitarians, as we 
shall show hereafter. Mr. Campbell 
himself admits that these views of faith, 
forgiveness, and regeneration, are essen- 
tial to the very existence of his system. 
Hence, if they are proved to be errone- 
ous, or are found destitute of support, his 
whole theological fabric, confessedly, 
falls to the ground. 

SECTION VI. 

A brief summary of the foregoing views, 
and inferences therefrom. 
From the foregoing extracts we learn • 

1. That Mr. C. and his sect aver, that 
no person can be justified or saved " in 
time or eternity," unless regenerated, or 
born again. 

2. That immersion in water is es- 
sential to regeneration. For, say the 
Campbellites, no person can possibly be 
regenerated without being immersed. 

3. That immersion in water is the 
medium through which sins are remitted. 

4. And however inconsistent with the 
foregoing, that immersion is regeneration 



AND REFUTED. 



23 



itsel£ "Being born again, and being 
immersed, are, in the Apostles' style two 
names for the same thing." 

Hence nothing can be clearer than that 
according to the Campbellites, immersion 
in water is indispensably necessa^rTj to sal- 
vation. It follows syllogistically, thus : 

1. Reo-eneration is essential to salva- 
tion. But immersion in water is essen- 
tial to regeneration, inasmuch as no one 
can be regenerated without being im- 
mersed : therefore immersion in water is 
essential to salvation. Or thus : 

2. " Immersion and regeneration are m 
the Apostles' style, two names for the same 
thing:" so that being immersed is itself 
being regenerated. But no one can be sav- 
ed without being regenerated. Therefore 
no person can be saved without being 
immersed. 

Corollary. Infants who die in infan- 
cy, are either lost, or if saved, they are 
saved without being regenerated. Even 
the infants of the Campbellites ; for they 
do not baptize their children. 

3. The same conclusion follows in 
another way. Immersion is essential to 
remission of sins. But no one can 
be saved without remission of sins. — 
Therefore, no one can be saved without 
being immersed. 

Corollary. All mankind, therefore, 
according to the Campbellites, who are 
not immersed, perish forever. 

If there is any way in which to avoid 
these conclusions, while holding the 
views embodied in the foregoing extracts, 
Mr. C. and his followers, will do their 
cause an essential service by making it 
manifest. It will require, however, 
something more than sneering at these 
inferences, to convince the public mind 
that they do not legitimately result from 
those principles. 



CHAPTER HI. 

THE PROOF TEXTS URGED BY THE CAMP- 
BELLITES IN FAVOR OP THE FOREGOING 
VIEWS EXAMINED. 

Our object in presenting the preceding 
brief summary of Mr. C.'s views on 
these points, is merely for the conveni- 
ence of reference ; and not to prove them 
false by their consequences. Mr. C. and 



his friends profess to appeal to the Bible, 
to sustain their doctrine ; and if that fair- 
ly sustains them, it is vain to talk of con- 
sequences. If it do not, then such argu- 
ment may be urged with propriety. 

We proceed, therefore, to consider 
their 

Argument founded on John 3 : 5. 

This passage has ever been regarded 
by Mr. Campbell and his friends as con- 
taining a complete, and unanswerable ar- 
gument in favor of their position, that 
baptism is essential to regeneration^ and 
consequently to salvation: "Jesus an- 
swered. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, 
except a man be born of water, and of 
the Spirit, he cannot enter into the king- 
dom of GodP On this verse, with Tit 
3 : 5, there has been more controversy 
with this sect, than on any other texts of 
Scripture. 

To avoid the force of Mr. Campbell's 
argument, it has been observed, that the 
phrase " kingdom of God" does not refer 
to heaven, but to the invisible church on 
earth. Others have supposed that it re- 
ferred to the visible church. Both posi- 
tions, however, have been swept away 
simply by the Campbellites asking, 
' Whether the objector did not believe 
that many were members of the invisible 
church who had never been baptized 
with water V and ' whether there were 
not members of the visible church, who, 
though they had been baptized with w^a- 
ter, had not been baptized with the Spirit V 
As both are admitted by all Evangelical 
Christians, the objectors could not, in 
consistency with their own sentiments, 
maintainsuchaviewof the subject. And 
thus their false exposition has been refu- 
ted, and Campbellism has triumphed. 

It is in vain that some have maintained 
that baptism is not here enjoined as es- 
sential, but merely as obligatory when it 
can be attended to. The Campbellites 
have triumphantly answered, that 'Being 
born of water is placed by our Saviour 
upon an equal footing with being born of 
the Spirit. If, therefore, the one may, 
under any circumstances, be dispensed 
with, the other may be likewise, under 
the same, or similar circumstances.' But 
as no Christian could admit such an in- 
ference, the position sustaining it must be 
abandoned. 



24 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



Thus, from this passage, the Camphell- 
ites and Papists, conclude, that to be born 
of water is equally essential to salvation, 
as to be born of the Spirit ; for the text 
says, " Except a man be born of water 
AND Spirit." But all Christians admit, 
that to be born of the Spirit is essential ; 
and therefore, agreeably to this admission, 
baptism is essential to salvation. This is 
the argum.ent of Mr. Campbell and his 
friends ; and the above is their method of 
wielding it. 

Now to attempt to answer an argu- 
ment of this kind by sneering at it, as 
has been already too often the case in this 
controversy, only betrays the imbecility 
of him who makes the attempt. Howev- 
er ridiculous an argument may appear, 
it is puerile to undertake its refutation by 
a witticism, when we know that our op- 
ponents rely upon it in support of opin- 
ions which they profess to believe to be 
as worthy of veneration and regard as 
we consider any of our own to be. If 
solid reasons cannot be given for dissent- 
ing from its conclusions, the argument 
will be deemed unanswerable, and its 
conclusions true, no matter whither they 
may lead. 

Mr. Campbell and his friends have 
frequently avowed their conviction that 
this argument is unanswerable. We do 
not agree with them, however ; for 

1. They take for granted the very 
'point in dispute. Without offering one 
particle of proof, they assume that iJ^wp 
water, is here to be understood of the ele- 
ment water. But this is by no means so 
clear as might be thought. The same 
word is often employed in the New Tes- 
tament in a sense quite diverse. E. g. see 
John 4: 10. Eph. 5: 26. Rev. 22: I, 
17, and John 7: 38, 39. " He that be- 
lieveth on me, out of his belly shall flow 
rivers of living water. But this he spake 
of the Spirit."* The argument is there- 
fore, of no value, unless it be shown that 
vdujp refers to the element water. 

But Mr. C, though he professes to 
place " no reliance on human authority," 
in such matters, yet in his reply to me, 
(Har, of 1839, p. 496,) pleads strongly 
such authority. And, as above quoted, 

* See also Rev. 7: 17, and 17: 1, 15, 1 Cor. 3: G— 8. 
Jno. 4: 15. And also, Jer. 2: 3^. Is. 30: 20, and 44: 3, 
and 5;3: 1, and Prov. 11: 25. Ps. 23: 2, and 69 : 1, and 
73: 10, &.C., &.C 



he says, "that in the judgment of all 
the learned Catholics and Protestants 
under Heaven, Jno. 3: 5, refers to im- 
mersion." Christ. Rest., p. 207. The 
reader will, therefore, excuse me for 
going somewhat into this matter. I have 
taken the pains to look over some of my 
musty tomes in respect to it, and the re- 
sult is as follows : 

Basil (lib. de Spir, Sancto, cap. 15,) 
says that water here means " mortifica- 
tion," So also Chemnitz, Exam, can, 
II., Sess. 7. Bullinger, (Decad. 5, Serm. 
8,) explains it not of external baptism, 
but of internal and spiritual regeneration. 
Brent, in his exposition of John p. 41, 
understands water here metaphorically. 
See Bellarmine de Bapt., lib. L c. 4. So 
also, Peter Lombard, (lib. IV., Distinct 
4,) explains it not to exclude the unbap- 
tized from salvation. The celebrated 
and learned Parens {in loco) says, " Aqua 
et spiritu : id est, aqua, quae est Spiri- 
Tus : et Spiritu, qui est similis aquae. 
Aqua enim et ignis in Scriptura saspe 
pro Spiritu sumuntur." That is, " Water 
tohich is the Spirit, and, the Spirit which 
is like to water. For water and fire in 
the Scriptures often signify the Spirit." 

Grotius, the most learned of critics, 
says, in loco, " Est autem Iv §«* ^voiv. 
Nam sicut in Spiritu et igiie. Matt. 3: 
11, significat per Spiritum igneum, ita 
hic ex Spiritu et aqua est ex Spiritu 
aqueo." The same exposition is given 
by the learned and acute Piscator. He 
says, (comment in loco,) " The term 
water in this place appears not to refer 
to baptism." " Neque enim hoc loco no- 
men aquce ad Baptismum referendum 
videtur," p. 316, and on p. 318 again, 
" Figura ioquendi quae norninatur sv 
Sta 8vo, quasi dicatur, ex aqua quae est 
Spiritus." This is the same exposition as 
that given above by Grotius : '' Christ here 
uses the figure which is called hendiadis, 
(two substantive nouns used instead of a 
noun and adjective, as if he had said, From 
loater which is Spirit." The celebrated 
and immensely learned Dr. Francis 
Gomarus, {in loco,) presents a labored 
argument to establish this same point, 
the conclusion of which is as follows: 
" From all these things it follows, that 
water, in this discourse of Christ, does 
not signify water of baptism, but the 
Holy Spirit." " Gluare ex hisce omni- 



AND REFUTED 



25 



bus consequitur, aquam in hac Christi sen- 
tentia, non significare aquam baptism! : 
sed Spiritum Sanctum." EpiscopiuSj the 
great theologian of the Arminians, in 
replying to the question, "Whether Jno. 
3: 5, relates to water baptism?" says, 
" On the contrary, many convincing rea- 
sons can be given, from which it is 
demonstrably certain, that by the term 
loater^ here, cannot be understood the 
baptism of water." " Imo contra claras 
multas rationes reddi posse, ex quibus 
evincitur hic per voceni Aquae^ aquae 
baptismum intelligi non posse." 0pp. 
Tom. II., part II., p. 159. Wolzogenius^ 
whose claim to learning none will dis- 
pute, says, " Christ asserts that regenera- 
tion is hy water and Spirit^ that is, from 
Spiritual water, which is the Holy Spirit." 
" Christus vult regenerationem fieri ex 
aqua et Spiritu id est, ex spiritual! aqua, 
quae est Spiritus Sanctus." Frat. Pol. 
VI., p. 747. Slichtingius also thus ex- 
pounds it: '■'•Ex aqua et Spiritu. Non 
dicit ex aqua et ex Spiritu, tanquam ex 
duabus rebus diversis, s-ed ex aqua et 
Spiritu, voce Spiritus, cui nee articulum 
adjecit, per exegesin addita, id est, ex 
aqua quae Spiritus est. Ideo mox vers. 
6, 8, solius Spiritus meminit. Solet 
enim Spiritus aquae comparari, qui ideo 
et effundi dicitur." Pol. Frat. V., p. 
26. " Christ does not say from the 
water and from the Spirit, as of two 
difterent things ; but of water and Spirit 
The word Spirit, not having the arti- 
cle, is added for exegesis, that is, of 
loatcr ivhich is Spirit. Therefore, in v. 
6 and 8, he mentions only Spirit. For 
the Spirit is compared to water, and is 
therefore said to be poured out.^'' The 
celebrated Amandus Polanus, of Polans- 
dorf, in his Syntagma, p. 320, says, 
" Here Christ connects Spirit with water 
for the purpose of explanation ; as if he 
had said, except a man is born of water 
which is the Holy Spirit, or of water., 
that is of the Holy Spirit." "Hic aquae 
adjicit Christus Spiritum," &c. Wende- 
linus gives it the same exposition: " Aqua 
Spiritualis, seu aqua, quae est Spiritus." 
"Per aquam non intelligitur baptismus 
aquae, seu sacramentum baptism!, sed 
res baptismo aquae significata, nempe 
aqua Spiritualis, quae est Spiritus Sanc- 
tus." Christ. Theol. 435, 441. See also 
EsseniuSj Comp. Dog., p. 672. Calvin. 



whose merits as an interpreter are of the 
highest order, says, " Primum in eo fal- 
luntur quod Baptism! mentionem fieri 
hoc loco putant, quia aquae nomen audi- 
unt." " Aquam ergo et Spiritum'simplici- 
ter accipio pro Spiritu qui aqua est." Insti. 
Lib. IV., c. 16, § 25. "They deceive 
themselves who think that there is a 
reference here to baptism, because water 
is mentioned. I understand water and 
Spirit simply for Spirit which is water," 
!. e. Spiritual water. But not to be un- 
necessarily tedious, I close with the 
exposition of the learned Poole, author 
of the Synopsis Criticorum. In his An- 
notations on Jno. 3, he remarks: "Our 
Saviour, instructing a Pharisee to whom 
the prophetical writings were known, 
expressly uses these two words, and in the 
same order as they are all set down there ; 
first, water, and then the Spirit, that the 
latter might interpret the former ; for water 
and Spirit, by a usual figure, when two 
words are employed to signify the same 
thing, signify Spiritual water, that is, 
his divine grace in renewing the soul." 
Such, then, is the value of Mr. Camp- 
bell's baseless assertion that all learned 
Protestants and Papists favor his prepos- 
terous exposition of this passage. It is as 
nauseating as it is wearisome, to be thus 
compelled to expose the puerile trifling 
of a mere sciolist, who has set up for a 
critic in sacred things, and wishes to pass 
himself off, among the illiterate, as a man 
of intelligence and learning.* 

* In his reply to me in the Harbinger of 1830, 
p. 496, he thus endeavors to ridicule the exposition 
which I gave of Jno. 3:5. " The curious reader 
might desire to know how a theologian, so spiritually 
learned, would interpret this passage. We shall gratify 
him with this literary treat : 'Unless you are baptised 
internally, or with Spiritual water, you cannot, &c. be 
saved.' Such is the nezo version of this passage; by 
the magic potency of which, not only J, but the primi- 
tive fathers, the Greek, Roman, English confessions, 
churches, and standards are refuted." He actually is 
so grossly illiterate as to think that the exposition 
which I gave of this passage in the Eiblic. Eepos., is 
entirely new. Ilinton, a celebrated Baptist writer of 
the present age, in his " History of Baptism," p. 
300, (of which it is shameful for Mr. C. to be ignorant,) 
speaking of the same text, says, " The passage plainly 
means, of water ' even of the Spirit ; ' the former being 
the figure of the purifying influence of the operation 
of the Divine Spirit. / am aware that Baptists even 
have been misled by the early Fathers on this point.''^ 
The Romish Bishop Kenrich, exhibits an ignorance 
only excelled by Mr. C.'s on this point ; for, remarking 
on this exposition, be says, "Such is the most recent 
improvement in Scriptural interpretation. It ia diffi- 
i cult to reason with enthusiasts," &c. " Treatise on 
Baptism" \i. 79. Parnobile fratrum. Tholuck v^owlA 
have informed these learned critics, that "the Re- 
formed Church, the Arminians, and modern inter- 



36 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED 



But to return to the argument. Since 
the Campbellites, therefore, claim to de- 
duce such sweeping conclusions from 
this passage, why should the whole point 
in dispute be granted, merely because 
Mr. C. says that every one explains the 
term water here as he does? We have 
repeatedly seen what is the true value of 
his most solemn affirmations. 

But further : Let it be observed that 
i'Swp here, even allowing it to refer to 
the element cannot, without manifest ab- 
surdity be understood of the water of 
Christian baptism. For the simple rea- 
son, that the Jewish dispensation was not 
abrogated at the time these words were 
spoken ; ( as Mr. C. fully admits,) and 
of course Christian baptism was not in- 
stituted. That the ceremonial law was 
still in full force, is clear from the fact 
that when Christ had healed a leper on 
a certain occasion (Matt. 8 : 4) he com- 
manded him to go show himself " to the 
priest and offer the gift that Moses com- 
manded for a testimony unto them." And 
the institution of Christian baptism was 
immediately antecedent to the Ascension. 
How then can Christ be understood here 
to refer to that ordinance, (at least so as to 
be understood by Nicodemus,) when that 
ordinance was not yet instituted ? But, 

2. The Campbellite exposition of this 
passage is directly contrary to fact. 

To say nothing on the subject of the 
emphasis being laid by our Saviour upon 
Spirit and not water, as appears from 
the fact that he directly, in the explanation 
of his meaning, entirely drops the men- 
tion of water and speaks of being born 
of ' the Spirit alone ; — there is another 
consideration which we might largely in- 
sist upon ; to wit, that if regeneration 
and immersion in water are one and the 
same thing, the illustration adopted by 
our Redeemer is necessarily inappropri- 
ate ; " The wind bloweth where it listeth, 
and thou hearest the sound thereof, but 
canst not tell whence it cometh, and 
whither it goeth, so is every one that is 
horn of the Spirit ; " which certainly 
was intended to teach us, that although 
the reality of the new birth could no 
more be doubted, than the existence of 
the wind ; yet that there was something 
in its nature, and in the manner where- 

preters " had rejected their old Popish exposition. See 
comment, in loco. 



by it was effected, wholly inexplicable by 
man; and that there most assuredly is 
nothing in the act, and in the circumstan- 
ces attendant on, immersion, that cannot 
be fully comprehended by any person. — 
But, to say nothing on these topics, I 
would remark that the Campbellite expo- 
sition is directly contrary to the conduct 
of our Saviour and to the word of God. 
The reader will bear in mind that this 
exposition is, that " no one can be regen- 
erated, or saved without being immersed." 
But I answer that unambigous facts 
prove this to be a false exposition of the 
language of our Saviour : for after this 
conversation with Nicodemus he repeat- 
edly remitted sins without baptism, — 
Take for example, the case of the palsy- 
stricken, Mark 2: 1—2, with Matt. 9: 
1 — 9 : " Son, be of good cheer, thy sins 
be forgiven thee." Or the case of Mary, 
Luke 7 : 36 — 55 : " Her sins which are 
many are forgiven for [not she has been 
immersed, but] she loved much. — And he 
said unto the woman, thy faith hath sav- 
ed thee ; go in peace.^^ But lest the ad- 
vocates of the system under considera- 
tion rather than admit the only obvious 
and proper inference, should maintain 
that these instances did not occur after ^ 
but previous to the conversation with Ni- 
codemus ; or, that if they did occur af- 
terward, they prove nothing, for the per- 
sons may not have been regenerated if 
even their sins were forgiven, we shall 
produce one more instance. It is that of 
the dying malefactor. He came to exe- 
cution a hardened impenitent sinner, 
Matt. 27: 44, and Mark, 15: 32. While 
hanging on the cross he repented, 
and was forgiven, Luke 23 40 — 43, 
Now the foregoing objections cannot 
here apply. For 1. No one will main- 
tain that this occurred before the conver- 
sation with Nicodemus ; and 2. No per- 
son will maintain that the malefactor was 
not regenerated; he was saved, and no 
one can be saved unless regenerated. He 
therefore came to the cross impenitent ; — 
on the cross he repented ; on the cross 
Jesus pardoned his sins; and from the 
cross received his soul to mansions 
of endless bliss. Here then, was a soul 
pardoned, regenerated, sanctified, and 
saved, without the application of water. 
Of course then, water is not essential to 
regeneration, nor baptism absolutely es- 



AND REFUTED. 



27 



sential to salvation. And consequently, 
the Campbellite exposition of John 3: 5, 
is false.* 

But their exposition is equally contra- 
dictory to facts of another description. — 
Mr. Campbell and his followers admit 
that the phrase "born of water and of 
the Spirit," is only another form of ex- 
pression for " being regenerated," or " born 
again." In other words, that the term 
regeneration signifies everything that 
Christ intended by the phrase " born of 
water and of the Spirit." This is un- 
doubtedly correct; for we have the ful- 
lest confirmation of it in v. 3 and 8 of the 
same chapter. The question then arises, 
How are persons regenerated, agreeably 
to the scriptures ? And this question we 
shall answer in the phraseology of the 
Bible. God regenerates manJdnd through 
the truth. 1 Pet. 1 : 23, '* Being born 
again, not of corruptible seed, but of in- 
corruptible, J?/ the word of God,^^ Sva,%6yov 
Qcov John 8: 32, "The truth shall make 
you free." John 17: 17, "Sanctify them 

* Bishop Kenrick makes a truly ludicrous attempt 
to come to the rescue of his brother Campbell, in refer- 
ring this text to water baptism. He says : " The Jews 
were wont to call the baptism of a Gentile proselyte, a 
new birth." Treatise on Baptism, p. 35 ; and hence he 
concludes, that our Saviour refers to Baptism in Jno. 
3 : 5. But, 

1- In coming to the assistance of his brethren, the 
Bishop has been rather more complaisant than consist- 
ency allows ; for he has carried his politeness so far as 
to imitate Mr. Campbell in contradicting himself. For 
on p. 15, of the same book, and speaking of proselyte 
baptism, he says : " Whether the rite of baptizing was 
practiced among the Jews, previously to the time of 
John, is a subject of dispute among the learned ;" now 
John came to preach repentance and to baptize the 
Jews. How then could this gentleman be certain that 
"the Jews were accustomed to call the baptism of a 
proselyte anew birth," when, by his own concession, 
it is uncertain whether they ever baptized proselytes ? 
Surely the Pope has not granted to his Bishops the right 
of deciding ex officio, questions which are in dispute 
among the learned. Or perhaps, the Bishop only 
wishes to afford an illustration of the ease, with which 
qaestions in dispute among the learned, can be settled 
per auctoritatem Ecclesim. But, 

2. The force of profound criticism may be fully per- 
ceived by referring to the difficulty which Nicodemus 
had to comprehend the meaning of the Saviour. It 
was the custom of the Jews, says the Bishop, to speak 
of Baptism as a new birth, and therefore Christ refers 
to baptism in Jno. 3 : 5. But Nicodemus, a learned and 
eminent Jew, and a member of the Sanhedrim, was so 
grossly ignorant of the Jewish language and ordinary 
figures of speech, that he could not comprehend the 
meaning of a common and « customary" allusion. 

Such is the profundity of this gentleman, who pre- 
tends to lay claim to intelligence sufficient to warrant 
a censorious sneering at such men as Calvin, Witsius, 
Isaac Taylor, Hinton, &c.,— and a sufficiency of com- 
mon sense to justify his denouncing ihem as " en«/tw- 
sia^ts," 



through thy truth, thy word is truth." — 
Jas. 1 : 1, " Of his own will begat he us 
with the word of truth." Mr. Campbell 
makes a distinction between " being born 
of God" and "being begotten of" him, 
but this distinction is unavailinof. For 
the above cited passages declare that per- 
sons are both born of God, and begotten 
of God, " by the word of truth." Other 
passages in great abundance, declaring 
the same, can be easily adduced. If, 
therefore, men are regenerated, or born 
again, by the truth., and if the phrase 
"born of water and of the Spirit," signi- 
fies nothing more than being regenerated, 
which the Campbellites admit, it follows 
that Mr. Campbell's exposition of this 
passage, so far at least as regards his in- 
ferences from it, is false. 

This passage being regarded as the 
great pillar of the system under consider- 
ation, it may reasonably be demanded, 
that, having shown the falseness of the 
foregoing exposition, I should at least 
attempt to make known the true import 

of the phrase al x'SaT'oj xal Ttviv/xato^, of 

water and of the Spirit. I shall proceed 
to do so with brevity. 

We shall first consider the occasion of 
Christ's introducing this phraseology, and 
then its import. 

It is an excellent observation, which 
lord Bacon somewhere makes, that "be- 
ing unlike man, who knows man's 
thoughts only by his words, Christ, 
knowing man's thoaghts immediately, 
never answered iheir words, but their 
thoughts : " — that is, he always answ^ered 
their thoughts, whether their words really 
expressed them or not. Le Clerc, pro- 
fiting by this suggestion, has remarked 
upon the passage before us, (see his 
Harm. fol. p. 520,) that the answer of 
Jesus does not seem direct, but that Nico- 
demus, having premised what is con- 
tained in ver. 2, was about to ask Jesus 
what he ought to do in order to be ad- 
mitted into the kingdom of heaven, which 
was at hand ; and that it is this unuttered 
part of his address that the remarks of 
Jesus are a reply too." Hence, nothing 
can be more to the point than our Lord's 
reply ; though, without this clew, (or, at 
least, granting the supposition that the 
whole of the conversation is not recorded,) 
it has somewhat the appearance of ab- 
ruptness: "Verily, verily, I say unto 



28 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED 



you, unless a man. be born again, he 
cannot see the kingdom of God." Nico- 
demus, not comprehending the import of 
this declaration, Jesus proceeds to explain 
it; in which explanation he uses the 
phrase immediately under consideration. 

By referring to the original, we find a 
clew to the meaning of the passage, 
which will at once divest it of the appa- 
rent obscurity of our Saviour's allusion 
to water; in which, in fact, the chief 
obscurity consists. We refer to the appel- 
lation given to Nicodemus, o Ai8d(jxa%og, 
not " a master of Israel," (as our transla- 
tion renders it,) but "z^/ic teacher;" and 
critics have labored very much from find- 
ing the definite article in this connection. 
But it is only necessary to suppose that 
Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrim, 
had been in his regular turn, officer of the 
day, who presided over the dispensation of 
baptismal water, in the constant, and al- 
most innumerous Jewish purifications; 
and all is plain. The reason then is at 
once apparent, why he is denominated 
" the master of Israel," and also why 
our Saviour makes the allusion to water. 

But what is the meanmg of the phrase 
i^vSaTfo^ xai Tivsv jiaTfo^ 1 A.ns. " Our Sa- 
viour, instructing a Jew to whom the 
prophetic writings were known, uses 
these two words in the order in which 
they are recorded, that the latter might 
interpret the former, meaning by the 
phrase, spiritual water :^^ i. e. "You 
have sir, been baptising with water, but let 
me tell you, that outward baptism will 
not qualify you for being an inhabitant 
of the kingdom you speak of Unless 
you are baptised internally, or with spir- 
itual water, you cannot," etc. That 
such is the meaning of these two words, 
and that thus Nicodemus understood 
them, we see not how it can be disputed 
by any who will attend to the phraseol- 
ogy of the Scriptures. See e. g. Matt. 
3: 11, Tivevfiati xai rtvpt, with Spiritual 

fire. Matt. 4 : 16, eV ;i;copaa;at ffxta^o.vai'oi;, 

in the region of the shade of death. 1 
Cormth. 2: 4, Iv aTtoJ^ft'lst rtvfu^uai'oj xal 
dwdfisa?, in the demonstration of the 
powerful Spirit. Coll. 2: 8, 5ta trj? 

«J)C?iotfo<|)taj xai xsvvji artaT'iyj, bj/ the vain 

deceit of philosophy. So also Acts 17: 
25, rtarjt ^carjv xai rivoriv, to all the breath 
of life] an expression equivalent to Ttvoriv 
r^5 (of the LXX.) in Gen. 2:7. So 



also 2 Mace. 7 : 23, -to Ttvivixa xai triv ^loijv 
vy.lv, he shall restore to you the breath of 
life. Gen. 3 : 16, r'aj ^jta^ gov xai 'tov 
6t£vayfiov 60V, thy sorrow from, or by, thy 
conception. 

It will be remembered also that the 
Jews had but few adjectives, and there- 
fore had recourse to substantives to sup- 
ply their place. Hence this idiom ; and 
hence it is found running through the 
whole Bible. In addition to the forego- 
ing examples, see 1 Thess. 2: 12, where 
^'■kingdom and glory'''' mean glorious 
kingdom; Luke 21: 15, ^'' mouth and 
toisdom," wise discourse ; 1 Thess. 1 : 3, 
"patience of hope " for ^(^^ze?i^ hope or 
expectation ; 2 Thess. 1:9, " glory of 
his power," for glorious power ; Col. 1 : 
22, "The body of his flesh," for his 
fieshly body; Col. 3: 14, "bond of per- 
fectness," for perfect bond; Acts 23 : 6, 
" the hope and resurrection," for hope of 
the resurrection; 2 Tim. 1: 10, "life 
and immortality," for immortal life ; and 
so on in instances without number. Now 
this simple prmciple of hendiadis applied 
to Jno. 3 : 5, at once makes the meaning 
of our Saviour fully apparent. See also, 
Home's Introd. I., p. 197. 

But Mr. Campbell strenuously objects 
against interpreting one part of the pas- 
sage figuratively, and the other literally, 
as he says is done when we take the 
word Spirit literally, and water figura- 
tively. He contends that the whole 
verse " must be either literal or figurative 
throughout." But in this assertion there 
is betrayed a great want of consideration ; 
for there are innumerable passages of 
Scripture which demonstrate its falseness. 
Not to insist on Matt. 3: 11, take John 
7: 38, " He that believeth on me, out of 
his belly shall flow rivers of living water." 
The phrase "He that believeth on me," 
every one will admit, is to be understood 
literally ; and yet the concluding phrase 
is figurative, as John himself tells us in 
the next verse, '■^But this spake he of the 
Spirit." See also Is. 44: 3. John 4: 13, 
14, etc. 

The Campbellites also object very 
strenuously against making the two words 
loater and Spirit refer to Spirit alone. 
They maintain that " such a construction 
must make nonsense of the whole pas- 
sage." We have known them to be ex- 
ceedingly witty while sermonizing on the 



AND REFUTED. 



29 



subject, affirming that it made the Saviour 
say, "Except a man be born of Spirit 
and of the Spirit, — which is unintelligi- 
ble." And then the exegetical ability of 
their opponents would fairly smoke again 
beneath the scorchings of their ridicule. 
But before they should have ventured to 
ridicule the exposition which we give of 
this passage, it would have been wise in 
them to enquire whether their witticisms 
could not be successfully retorted. For 
in the present instance they have been 
peculiarly unfortimate. In their exposi- 
tion of the phrase, they do the very same 
thing for which they have undertaken, in 
so contemptuous a manner, to sneer at 
others. They assert that "regeneration 
and immersion in water, are two names 
for the same thing^ Of course, then, if 
(as they assert) rSwp, water, in the text 
refers to immersion in water, it of course 
refers to regeneration, for " they are two 
names for the same thing." But they 
also declare that the whole phrase " water 
and the Spirit," refers only to regenera- 
tion; and therefore Ttv^vua, Spirit, m.ust 
likewise refer to immersion. And thus 
water refers to immersion, and Spirit re- 
fers to it likewise. So that the Camp- 
bellites' sneers might be returned with 
interest. 

We proceed to consider their 

Argument from Titus 3: 5. 
In the present controversy, this pas- 
sage is the one next in importance to the 
preceding. " Not by works of righteous- 
ness which we have done, but according 
to his mercy he saved us, by the washing 
of regeneration^ and the renewing of the 
Holy GhostP This is supposed to be a 
full proof of the doctrine that baptism is 
equally essential to salvation as " the re- 
newing of the Holy Ghost." By the 
phrase "washing of regeneration," the 
Campbellites understand immersion in 
water; and they take for granted that it 
can mean nothing else. See Mill. Har. 
Ex. Nos. 1. and 6. and Vol. II. No. 3. 
This argument may be thus stated : If the 
"renewing of the Holy Ghost" relates to 
being born again, which our opponents 
admit ; and if the phrase " washing of re- 
generation" refers to baptism, which it 
would be absurd to deny; and if God 
saves us " by the washing of regeneration. 



(i. e. baptism,) and the renewing of the 
Holy Ghost," it follows that water bap- 
tism is, on their own principles, no less 
essential to salvation than is the renewing 
of the Holy Ghost. This is their argu- 
ment, and at first sight it seems plausible ; 
for the received text reads 5ta "Kovt^ov 
r(a%iyysv£Oiai, xai avaxacvJiasu^ jtvtvfiatos 
ay Lov. 

But how perfectly preposterous does 
this reasoning appear when viewed in 
connection with the principles under dis- 
cussion. The advocates of those princi- 
ples sagely inform us that regeneration 
and immersion are the same thing; "in 
the apostle's style, two names for the same 
thing ;^^ and yet they aver that immersion 
is here said to be equally essential as re- 
generation ; that is, immersion is equally 
essential as immersion ; which it is pre- 
sumed that few would deny. 

I make these remarks, not to evade the 
apparent difficulty before stated ; (the ar- 
gument is one that has been, in substance, 
long employed by the papists, and we 
therefore deem it important to consider 
it carefully ;) but it is an argument which 
Mr. Campbell and his followers cannot 
employ seriously without surrendering 
into the hands of their opponents more 
than they gain by it. This will be seen 
presently. 

The preceding argument is plain, un- 
ambiguous, and admits of no exceptions. 
Let us then pause and ask, Whether the 
conclusion does not directly contradict 
the scripture facts already adverted to 
under our examination of John 3 : 5 ? 
And if it does, whether that conclusion is 
not necessarily false? But further, the 
Campbellites must admit, that if baptism 
is the "laver of regeneration," if it is the 
"scripture method of being born again," 
it must be so in every case, at least when 
administered by an apostle. But can 
any one seriously believe that all whom 
the apostles baptized were regenerated in 
the scripture sense of the term? That 
Simon Magus was scripturally "born 
again, converted, regenerated," at the pre- 
cise moment that he had " no part nor lot 
in the matter," and was "in the gall of 
bitterness and bonds of iniquity?" and so 
of Ananias, Sapphira and others. Can 
it be possible for a rational man to give 
assent to such a proposition? But until 



30 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



it is assented to, this passage cannot be 
pressed into the service of supporting 
their scheme. 

Now, however plausible an argument 
founded on the foregoing translation of 
this passage may appear to be, yet when 
critically investigated it fades away as the 
murky vapor before the rising sun. For 

7i.ovTfpov Tia'ktyysvssia^ and draxaivwcffwj 

jtvsvixatos oytou, manifestly refer to the 
same thing ; the latter clause being exe- 
getical of the former. 

Any one conversant with scripture- cri- 
ticism will readily admit that it is no 
uncommon thing for the latter clause of a 
passage to be explanatory of the former. 
"When he shall have delivered up the 
kingdom to God even (xai) the Father," 
1 Cor. 15: 24. See also 1 Thess. 1 : 3, 
17, (in Campbell's translation) Titus 2 : 
13. And in the Old Testament see Gen. 
6: 17. 7: 21—24. 37: 24. 40: 23. 42: 
2.49:25. Judges 5: 3. Ezek. 34: 11. 
Judges 3: 10. But to cite all the pas- 
sages would be to quote a large part of 
the Bible.* 

Mr. Campbell knows perfectly well 
that the only correct rendering of xal in 
numberless instances in the New Testa- 
ment is " even ;" and he knows too that 
in a great number of instances in his ver- 
sion of the New Testament he has thus 
translated it ; see e. g. Acts 7:5. 1 Cor. 
15: 24. 1 Thess. 1: 3. 2 Thess. 2: 
•16. And the reader can judge for him- 
self, whether Mr. Campbell would not 
have given it the same rendering in the 
instance before us, could he have subserv- 
ed the interests of his sect as well by 
doing so, as by the translation which he 
has given. 

There is also a manifest and strong 
reason for adopting this rendering. Bap- 
tism, when properly performed is '•^a 
work of righteousness which we have 
done;'''' but Paul declares that it is '''■not 
by works of righteousness which we have 
done, hut according to his mercy he sa- 
ved us hy the washing of regeneration^ 
" etc.; of course then, ha'ptism must be 
something different from this washing, 
because by it we are saved. Hence, 

* To any one acquainted with the subject it is suffi- 
cient merely to refer to the parallels synomjvious of 
the Hebrew poetry ; in which the second clause is al- 
ways exegetical of the first. See Ps. 21 : 1, 2, and 112 : 
1. Prov. 1 : 24—32, and 3 : 9. Is. 46 : 3, and 51 : 7, 8, 
and 54 : 4, and 55 : 3, 6, 7, &c. 



"washing of regeneration" can be refer- 
red only to " the renewing of the Holy 
Ghost." 

The Latin Vulgate [Basil, anno 1578,) 
renders the passage thus : per lavacrum 
regenerationis Spiritus Sancti, "By the 
laver of regeneration of the Holy Spirit." 
Whatever this "laver" therefore may be, 
it is here referred exclusively to the agen- 
cy of the Holy Spirit. But it would be 
preposterous to suppose that the Holy 
Spirit operates upon the soul by water. 

Here, then, we have in favor of this 
rendering, the approved version of the 
whole Romish church; which will cer- 
tainly be considered as of great weight 
when it is remembered that this church 
makes water baptism essential to salva- 
tion.* It would therefore have been to 
their interest (as like the Campbellites, 
they are very much pressed for proof- 
texts,) to have given this passage a ren- 
dering similar to that contended for by 
Mr. Campbell. Yet with a knowledge 
of all the advantages that their cause 
would thereby have gained, we find them 
without hesitation repudiating such a ren- 
dering. To be sure, they have in the 
margin added the phrase "et renovationis," 
and renewal, as a marginal gloss or read- 
ing ; but this only proves that it was not 
left out of the text by mistake. They 
must therefore have had solid reasons for 
thus omitting it, when its insertion would 
have been of so much advantage to their 
cause. And as the passage now reads, 
the "regeneration" spoken of, is referred 
entirely to the operation of the Holy 
Ghost. The Rhemish translators of the 
Vulgate, it is true, have added to the text, 
the clause "et renovationis," but it is not 
difficult to determine their motives for 
doing so. Such an act tends to display 
their faithfulness as translators in its true 
colors. 

The reader will not understand me as 
attempting to insinuate that the phrase xal 
d»/axatvw(yf«j, is a spurious reading. The 

* « The law of baptism as established by our Lord, 
extends to all, insomuch that, unless they are regene- 
rated by baptism,he their parents Christians or infidels, 
they are born to eternal misery." Douay Catechism, 
p, 171. Bishop Kenriclt, of Pennsylvania, also in his 
late work on Baptism, (in which he seems to regard 
Mr. Campbell with a good deal of sympathy for a Pa- 
pist,) says " What shall we believe in regard to infanta 
who die without baptism ? We must hold according 
to the words of our Lord ( ? ) that they cannot enter 
int^) the kingdom of heaven." p. 87. 



AND REFUTED, 



31 



proper inference to be deduced from the 
fact, that the copyists and correctors of Je- 
rome omitted the words ct renovationis 
would be, not that they regarded the 
phrase referred to as spurious, but that 
they considered per lavacrum regenera- 
tionis Spiritus Sanctis a full and com- 
plete translation of the whole passage. — 
No one ever thinks it necessary, in order 
to give a faithful translation of a lan- 
guage, to render it word for word. If 
the idea can be expressed perfectly in 
fewer words than are employed for that 
purpose in the language from which the 
translation is made, no one would think 
of objecting to the translation on that 
ground. So the author of this transla- 
tion, believing that the phrases "washing 
of regeneration," and "renewal of the 
Holy Ghost," referred to the same thmg, 
viz., spiritual regeneration, saw no im- 
propriety whatever in expressing the 
idea in fewer words, thus : " The wash- 
ing of regeneration of the Holy Spirit;" 
that is, as we have above rendered it, "the 
washing of regeneration, even the re- 
newing of the Holy Ghost." 

Since writing the foregoing criticism, 
I perceive that J. H. Hinton, and the 
learned Dr. Williams of England, in his 
answer to Bishop Tomline, and also Dr. 
Cleland and Pres. Beecher of our coun- 
try give the passage the same rendering.* 

Argument from Acts 22: 16. 

This passage is adduced in support o f 
the position that baptism is essential to re- 
mission of sins. " And now why tarriest 
thou? Arise and he baptized^ and wash 
away thy sins, calling upon the name of 
the Lord." The Campbellites produce 
these words with an air of triumph; and 
pretend that it is only necessary for them 
to quote the passage, in order to demon- 
strate that their doctrine of remitting sins 
by baptism is true. They are perpetual- 
ly asserting that " Here is an instance in 
which sins were actually washed away 
by water baptism. Of course, therefore, 
the truth of the doctrine that they are 
washed away in this manner, cannot be 
questioned." One of their writers says, 

* The celebrated Slichtingius gives it, in effect, the 
same exposition. He says expressly, after quoting Tit. 
3 ; 5, that the laver here is spiritual " Lavacrum 
Spitituale est." Pol. Frat. v. 26. As he is a Socinian, 
Mr. C. will respect his authority. Richard Baxter also 
explains it in a similar manner. 



" Paul's sins were not forgiven till he 
was baptized." Another says, " Until a 
man is baptized, invoking the name of 
the Lord, he is in his sins " Of course 
then, agreeably to this doctrine, Paul 
was not a pardoned sinner until he was 
baptized ! It would be difficult to ac- 
count for the recklessness of such an as- 
sertion, on any other supposition than 
that partiality to a favorite theory has 
blinded the minds of these men. How, 
otherwise, could they have failed to dis- 
cern the overwhelming evidence of the 
fact, that Paul was regenerated and con- 
verted, (and, of course, his sins were par- 
doned,) before Ananias called upon him? 
One would think, that the bare perusal 
of Acts IX. must have satisfied the mind 
of any one, however prejudiced, of the 
truth of this. But as the fact is thus dis- 
puted, and even denied, we shall briefly 
exhibit a few of the proofs which support 
it, after which, we shall explain the pas- 
sage. 

1. In Acts 9: 11, he is directly repre- 
sented as converted: " Behold heprayethP 
Paul, as a Pharisee, had undoubtedly 
constantly prayed before this. What 
then is the import of this declaration? — 
Why, that he now prayed aright. And 
praying aright is of course an evidence 
of conversion. This too is the evidence 
that the Lord gave to satisfy Ananias that 
Paul was no longer a persecutor ; and it 
did satisfy him to that degree that he from 
that moment regarded him as a christian 
brother. 

2. The object foT which he was sent is 
sufficient to convince any one that Paul 
must have been, at that time, a sincere 
believer ; and of course, a pardoned sin- 
ner. " Go — that he may receive his 
sight, for (yap) behold he prayeth." If 
the words " behold he prayeth" do not in 
their connection denote an essential 
change of character, what words can? 

3. Let any one review the actions and 
words of Ananias towards Paul, and he 
will find that the same fact is established. 
The cause for which he was blinded, 
was now removed. Ananias gives him 
the strongest evidence of this, by restor- 
ing his sight: The same kind of evidence 
that the sick of the palsy had when 
Jesus said, " Thy sins be forgiven thee." 
Moreover, Ananias salutes him by the 
distinguishing christian appellation of 



32 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED 



" brother ;" a term that Paul constantly 
opposes to unbeliever. See 1 Cor. 7: 12, 
13. 5: 11. 6: 8. 8: 11, etc. 

4. It is quite unnecessary to enlarge 
here. But I would just remark, that the 
same fact is established by the following 
declaration of the Lord to Ananias ; " He 
is a chosen vessel to bear my name before 
the Gentiles, to suffer for me," etc. — 
See V. 15, 16. 

Now the only reason for maintaining 
that Saul was not converted until he was 
baptized, is, it is said, " Arise and be bap- 
tized, and toash away thy sins ; and it is 
argued that. If he were a Christian be- 
fore his baptism, his sins were of course 
washed away before his baptism: But 
his sins were not washed away until he 
was baptized ; and therefore, he was not 
converted, regenerated, or pardoned, until 
then. 

But even admitting that there is an 
immediate connection between baptism 
and remission in this passage, (a fact that 
is by no means clear, as we shall show,) 
surely it would not require any great 
stretch of credulity to suppose that Ana- 
nias meant by these words no more than, 
"Receive the external sign of having ob- 
tained the remission of sins." 

By a little attention to the original the 
Campbellites might have seen the blun- 
der which they have committed in their 



For 



a^apT'taj aov^ 



translated 



argument. 

'• thy sins," is not, as they pretend, here 
used to designate the sins of his whole 
life — all his sins; but simply the re- 
proach, or stains that rested on his char- 
acter as a persecutor of the church.* 
And these stains could be washed away, 
only in the manner prescribed by Ana- 
nias, viz., by calling upon the name of 
the Lord. For that the connection is 
(as the passage reads) between washing 
away sin, and calling wpon the name of 
the Lord, and not between baptism and 
washing away sin, is clear from the fact 
that these sins could be removed by 
calling upon the name of the Lord, 
much more effectually than by baptism 
administered privately, as his was. Now 
the distinguishing appellation of Chris- 
tians, at this tim.e, was " those that call 
upon the name of the Lord.'''' See Acts 



* Thus, too, dfAA^rist? is used in 1 Pet. 4 : 8, to sig- 
nify " offences," (as Schoetgen remarks sub voce,) 
offences against charity. 



9:11,14,21. 1 Cor. 1:1,2. Acts 2: 
21. Rom. 10: 13, etc. Hence the idea 
is, " Wash away thy sins — remove them 
by calling upon the name of the Lord." 
As if Ananias had said : " Go, call pub- 
licly upon that Lord, whose disciples you 
have persecuted even unto death; asso- 
ciate with them, and those stains which 
you have contracted as their persecutor 
will be washed away — will be forgotten." 
See 2 Cor. 7: 1. Is. 1: 16,17. Jer.4. 14. 
In support of this rendering, we will 
produce one authority which must be 
admitted to be in this controversy com- 
pletely decisive. We refer to Mr, Camp« 
bell himself In Vol. VII., p. 164 of 
his Christian Baptist, he thus speaks: 
" Have you, my dear brother, ever ad- 
verted to the import of the participle in 
the commission. Matt, xxviii, : Disciple, 
or convert the nations, immersing them. 
I need not tell you that this is the exact 
translation. Let me ask you, then, does 
not the active participle always, when 
co7inected with the imperative mood, ex- 
press the manner in ichich the thing com- 
ma7ided is to be performed? Cleanse 
the room, washing it; clean the floor, 
sweeping it ; cultivate the field, plough- 
ing it ; sustain the hungry, feeding them ; 
furnish the soldiers, arming them ; con- 
vert the nations, baptizing them ; are 
exactly the same forms of speech. No 
person I presume will controvert this " 
Very good, indeed. Now let us try the 
clause under consideration by this famous 
and incontrovertible rule ; and in order 
to do Mr. Campbell perfect justice, we 
shall take his own translation of the pas- 
sage : " Wash away thy sins, invoking 
his nameV Here then is "the active 
participle" (invoking) connected with the 
"imperative mood" (wash away). Of 
course then, as "the active participle 
when connected with the imperative 
mood, always expresses the manner m 
which the thing commanded is to be per- 
formed," Paul was to wash away his 
sins by invoking the name of the Lord, 
and not by baptism. How then can this 
text be adduced to prove that sins are 
washed away by baptism % * 

* Mr C. is very anjjry with me for applying his nils 
to this case; and he makes several most ludicrous ef- 
forts to extricate himself and still hold his '■'■rule." See 
Har., Vol. VT., p. 70, (old series,) and also Har. for 
1839, p, 498. He says, " The stroke of sophistry con- 
sists in placing the active participle not with its own 



AND REFUTED. 



33 



But suppose we allow that " sins " 
here refers to all the sms of Paul's whole 
life ; the important query arises. How did 
he wash away his sins ? He was com- 
manded to wash them away (drtoT^ovtyat- 
^•as a^apftaj gov) ; and we are told he 
obeyed the command. How did he obey 
it ? Campbellites say that " it was done 
by the waters of baptism." But how 
did he wash away his sins by the waters 
of baptism ? This phrase is utterly un- 
intelligible. Did he baptize himself? 
This surely will never be pretended : and 
yet, if his sins were washed away by 
baptism, this is the only way in which it 
could with propriety be said that " he 
washed away his sins." But this is so 
preposterous that Campbellites vdW not 
admit it ; for it would be establishing a 
precedent with them of rather a singular 
character, and of disastrous effect ; and 
it is also said in Acts 9:18, that " he teas 
baptized,"" in the passive voice. How 
then did Paul wash away his sins by 
baptism, if he did not baptize himself? 
There can be no way whatever. And 
this further proves that the connection is 
not between baptize and wash away, as 
Campbellites pretend ; but between wash 
away and invoking. For thus it is per- 
fectly plain how Paul obeyed the injunc- 
tion ; and did actually " wash away his 
sins." 

If it were of any use, we could pursue 
this subject still further, and show that 
the most ridiculous consequences follow 
to the Campbellite scheme from their 
own exposition of this passage ; but we 
prefer to pass on to their 

Argument from Mark 16: 16. 
" He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved ; but he that believeth not 
shall be damned." From this it is argu- 
ed, that the Saviour has put water baptism 
upon an equal footing with believing; — 
and as believing is confessedly essential 
to salvation, baptism must of course be. 
But a very few remarks will show that 
this argument is very far from being con- 
clusive. 

imperative, but witb the expletive." Suppose, then, 
we place it " with its own imperative," " Arise and be 
baptized, invoking his name." And this, agreeably to 
the " rule" would make baptism to be administered by 
invocation : " for the active participle, when connected 
»vith the imperative mood, always expresses the manner 
•n which the thing commanded is to be performed." 
rruly, this is a " new discovery." 



As no person can dispense with any 
acknowledged command of Christ, and 
be in a salvable state, I conceive water 
baptism to be essential to the salvation of 
all who admit the ordinance to be enjoin- 
ed by Christ; provided it be in their 
power to obey the command. It was not 
however essential to the salvation of the 
dying malefactor ; nor is it, to the person 
who may truly repent on his death-bed, 
or in any circumstances in which it is im- 
possible to render obedience to the com- 
mand. A Quaker may likewise be sav- 
ed without it ; for he believes that the in- 
junction of the Redeemer on this sub- 
ject has reference only to spiritual bap- 
tism. There is a wide difference between 
simply mistaking the import of a com- 
mand, and A\dlfully neglecting it. The 
former is compatible with a sincere de- 
sire to obey it, but the latter is not.* 

But to proceed : The passage before 
us says, " He that believeth and is bap- 
tized shall be saved." Now this is per- 
fectly plain. It contains a proposition 
that no Christian can dispute. We are 
assured by it, that such as believe and 
are baptized " shall be saved." It does 
not, however, assert that such only shall 
be saved; but merely, that such will be 
saved, whatever becomes of others. The 
same as when Paul and Silas said to the 
jailer (Acts 16: 31), "Believe on the 
Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be sav- 
ed, and thy house," they did not intend to 
convey the idea that the jailer and his 
house were the only persons that should 
be saved ; but that they should be saved, 
on the terms then specified, whatever 
might become of others. If the Camp- 
bellites can here discover any proof in 
favor of their theory, they certainly pos- 
sess the faculty of acute discriminationj 
in a degree to which few others can pre- 
tend to lay claim, without very great pre- 
sumption. 

But, it may be asked, " Does not this 
declaration imply that those who are not 
baptized, will as certainly not be saved, 
as those who do not believe?" I ans- 
wer, that such an inference would be in- 
deed plausible if this declaration contain- 
ed all that our Saviour has said on the 



* In Mr. Campbell's exposition of these texts, and m 
his arguments deduced from them, he plainly disallows 
this distinction. For to admit it would at once prove 
fatal to his whole exposition. 



34 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



subject. But it does not ; for lie immedi- 
ately adds what renders it altogether nu- 
gatory to infer anything from the fore- 
going clause : " He that believeth not 
shall be damned." 

If, however, the Campbellites will re- 
sort to inference, we have no objection ; 
as, of course, we have the same privi- 
lege. They are welcome to infer from 
the former clause, that such only as are 
baptized shall be saved ; and that ail oth- 
ers must be lost, if even they do believe. 
We, on the contrary, have of course the 
same right to infer from the latter clause, 
that those only who do not believe shall 
be damned, and that all others shall be 
saved, whether they have been baptized 
or not. And how much Campbellism 
can gain by such a procedure, every one 
will judge for himself 

The next that we shall examine is 
their 

Argument founded on Acts 2: 38. 

This passage thus reads ; " Repent and 
be baptized, every one of you, for the re- 
mission of sins : " and from it the Camp- 
bellites argue that baptism is as intimate- 
ly connected with remission as repent- 
ance is : and that remission cannot be ob- 
tained without baptism, any more than 
without repentance. But repentance is 
essential to salvation ; and therefore so is 
baptism. 

It will not be disputed that the idea 
contained in this passage may, with pro- 
priety and correctness, be rendered " Re- 
pent and be baptized, every one of you, 
in the name of Jesus Christ, that your 
sins may be remitted: " ftj a^^sw afiaptvuv. 
In our translation, for seems to convey 
a meaning not supported by the original. 
The word is not yap but slg] "be baptiz- 
ed unto ihe remission of sins." It steers 
clear of the idea of desert being attached 
to baptism ; and this, in fact is Mr. Camp- 
bell's own rendering: " Reform, and be 
each of you immersed in the name of 
Jesus Christ, in order to the remission 
of sins." 

The confidence with which Mr. Camp- 
Dell relies on this passage, in support of 
his system, may be seen from the follow- 
ing quotation : "They were informed that 
though they now believed and repented, 
they were not pardoned ; and must reform, 
and be immersed, for the remission of 



sins." — " This testimony, when the speak 
er, the occasion, and the congregation, 
are all taken into view, is itself alone 
sufficient to establish the point." Christi- 
anity Rest. p. 199, 200. 

But what is it, I ask, to be baptized 
ft? aipsutv d^apT'twv ? The clause can eas 
ily be understood by a reference to a few 
of similar construction. " John preach 
ed the baptism of repentance (ft?) into 
the remission of sins''' — the same phrase. 
See Mark 1 : 4. So Rom. 6: 3, " Know 
ye not that as many of us as were bap- 
tized (sli) into Jesus Christ, etc. 1. Cor. 
10: 2, " And were all baptized (sis) into 
Moses.'' Matt. 3 : 11 , " I indeed baptize 
you with water (stj) into repentaJice."— 
These references are sufficient. The 
construction is precisely parallel to the 
one under consideration. And now we 
ask, — What did John the Baptist mean 
by " I baptize you unto repentance ?" — 
Did he mean that repentance was brought 
about by baptism ? If not, how can it 
be imagined, that when Peter used the 
expression, " Be baptized into the remis- 
sion of sins," he meant that baptism was 
to bring about remission of sins ? A 
similar question may be asked in relation 
to the other passages referred to. 

But let us take another brief view of 
it. With what is zi^ cL^tcw d^apt'fcwv (re- 
mission of sins) here connected? With 
repentance, or baptism, or both ? Peter 
himself, who uses the expression, shall 
also answer this question : " Repent ye, 
therefore^ and be converted^ that your 
sins may be blotted out" etc. Acts 3 : 
19. If then, water baptism is in every 
case as inseparably connected with for- 
giveness as repentance is, Peter has here 
been guilty of an unpardonable omis- 
sion. If he has made no omission, then 
the vital connection in the text under re- 
view is not between baptism and remis- 
sion, but between repentance and re- 
mission.* 

But further: The peculiar circum- 
stances of the case mentioned in Acts 2 : 
38, prove it to be a particular instance 

* Mr. C. asserts that «' be converted" here means " be 
baptized." Chris. Rest, 200, 201 ; and Mill. Har. for 
1839, p. 501. He gives no proof, only that his system 
requires that It should so be. But even Mr. C.'s follow- 
ers will have a higher regard for the authority of Dr. 
George Campbell, who, quoting Acts 3 : 19, adds " the 
words be converted, are nierehj explanatory;" thaX is, 
explanatory of the word repent. See " Lectures,^* 
p. 328. 



AND REFUTED 



35 



in the strictest sense of the term : and it 
is illogical and utterly out of the ques- 
tion to deduce general conclusions from 
it, and apply them to the present circum- 
stances of mankind at large. I have no 
objections to allow that in the case of the 
persons here spoken of, baptism may 
have been essential to remission: and 
yet this case would afford no ground for 
concluding that baptism is essential to re- 
mission in every case. But unless this 
can be shown, the passage confessedly 
affords no support whatever to the sys- 
tem. A few remarks will show how pe- 
culiar were their circumstances. 

1. The persons here spoken of, must 
either have obeyed the command, and 
have been baptized, or have remained 
open and avowed enemies to the cause of 
Christ. 

2. It was the best possible, and in fact, 
the only satisfactory evidence that they 
could then give, of their sincerity in re- 
nouncing Judaism and embracing Chris- 
tianity. The step involved the loss of all 
things. 

3. They^ circumstanced as they were, 
could not even innocently mistake, or 
misunderstand the command. The Apos- 
tles were present, and if any difficulty 
occurred it could be promptly obviated. — 
Hence it was not even possible for them 
to be in error respecting their duty on 
the subject. 

4. They had ample time and opportu- 
nity to obey the command. 

Now to disobey in such circumstances, 
must argue an impenitent, unhumbled 
heart. And to the possessor of such a 
heart remission could not be granted. — 
And hence baptism was essential to the 
remission of their sins. 

In the same sense that baptism was 
essential to the remission of sins in this 
case, it is also essential to remission at 
the present time ; e. g. when it is admit- 
ted that baptism is positively enjoined on 
all his followers by Christ ; and when 
there is time and opportunity to obey the 
command. Under these circumstances 
I do contend that no one can be in a sal- 
vable state while he lives in the open vi- 
olation of this command. We have no 
more right, under these circumstances, to 
dispense with this, than with any other 
acknowledged command of the Saviour. 

But then it does not follow that if bap- 



tism be essential to the salvation of per- 
sons thus situated, it therefore is essential 
in the case of persons not similarly cir- 
cumstanced ; e. g. of sick persons, or of 
others, in whose cases it might be impos- 
sible to administer the ordinance. Yet, 
unless it does follow that baptism is abso- 
lutely essential to remission in every in- 
stance, the passage confessedly affords no 
support to the theory that baptism is es- 
sential to the forgiveness of sin. If but 
one instance can be produced (and I have 
produced a number already), wherein it 
is admitted that remission of sins either 
was, or may be granted without baptism, 
the conclusion attempted to be deduced 
from this passage is false. 

But on this subject we want no better 
authority than that of Mr. Campbell 
himself Let us therefore hear him. — 
On p. 165, Vol. VII. of his Christian 
Baptist, he says : " / doubt not but such 
Paedohaptists as simply mistake the 
meaning and design of the christian in- 
stitution, who nevertheless are, as far as 
they know, obedient disciples of Jesus, 
will be admitted into the kingdom of glo- 
ry." So also in his Christianity Re- 
stored, p. 207, he says, " I am of opin- 
ion, that when a neglect proceeds from a 
simple mistake or sheer ignorance, and 
when there is no aversion, but a will to 
do every thing the Lord commands, the 
Lord will admit into the everlasting 
kingdom, those who by reason of this 
mistake, never had the testimony of God 
assuring them of pardon or justification 
here, and consequently, never did fully 
enjoy the salvation of God on earth."* — 
Now Mr. Campbell maintains that Pasdo- 
baptists are not baptized. Of course, 
then, he himself being judge, the passage 
under consideration does not prove that 
baptism is equally essential to salvation 



* But alas ! it is difficult to know whether we can 
take comfort even from this charitable concession : for 
in extra No. 1, p. 30, and also in Chris. Rest. p. 239, 240, 
he thus speaks : " Objection 3. ' It is so uncharitable to 
the Paedohaptists ! ' And how uncharitable are the 
Paedohaptists to Jews, Turks, and Pagans ! !— How un- 
charitable are they who cry ' uncharitable' to us ! In- 
fants, idiots, deaf and dumb persons, innocent Pagans : 
[see Rom. 1 : 20 — 32.] wherever they can be found, 
with all the pious Paedohaptists, we commend to the 
mercy of God. But such of them as \vilfully despise 
this salvation, and who having the opportunity to be 
immersed for the remission of their sins, wilfully de- 
spise or refuse, -we have as little hope for them, as they 
have for all who refuse salvation on their own terrns of 
the Gospel : " that is, Jews, Turks, Pagans, &c. 



36 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



as repentance. For, while he says that 
no sinner -can be saved without repent- 
ance, he admits, or " doubts not" that the 
unbaptized Psedobaptist may be saved. It 
follows, therefore, according to Mr. 
Campbell's own testimony, that the 
Campbellite exposition of Acts 2 : 38, is 
false. 

It is also worthy of remark, that al- 
though in this instance we find, " repent- 
ance, baptism, and remission of sins" in 
connexion ; yet in other passages we find 
" repentance and remission of sins" with- 
out any reference to baptism : a fact 
wholly inexplicable on the theory that 
sins are remitted only by baptism. An 
instance of this has been given above ; 
and the following are a few others : Acts 
5: 31. "Him hath God exalted with 
his own right hand, to be a Prince and a 
Saviour, to give repentance unto Israel 
and remission of sins." Luke 24 : 47. 
" That repentance and remission of sins 
should be preached in his name, among 
all nations." See also Acts 9 : 18. 2 
Gor. 7:10. Hence Paul also tells us, 
(I Gor. 1 : 17,) that " Ghrist sent him not 
to baptize but to preach the Gospel ;" 
and he thanks God that he baptized 
" none " of the Gorinthians, save a very 
few. 

There are a few other passages which 
the Gampbellites adduce, (though the fore- 
going are the chief ones,) such as Acts 
26 : 17, 18. " I send thee (Paul) to open 
their eyes, and to turn them from dark- 
ness to light, and from the power of Sa- 
tan unto God ; that they may receive 
forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among 
them which are sanctified by faith." On 
which Mr. Gampbell remarks, " Here is 
first faith, or illumination ; then conver- 
sion ; (i. e. baptism,) then remission of 
sins ; then the inheritance," Ghrist. Rest. 
201, 202. That is, Paul was sent to 
baptize the Gentiles ! A direct contra- 
diction to the Apostle himself. 1 Cor. 1 : 
17. Another passage is 1 Pet. 3: 21. 
" The like figure whereunto even baptism 
doth also now save us" &c., which Mr. 
G. urges as a full proof that baptism is 
essential to salvation. He says, " Con- 
necting faith with immersion, Peter aver- 
red that immersion saved us, purifying 
the conscience through the resurrection of 
Jesus." Christ Rest. p. 190. And yet 



he says, as we have seen above, that per^ 
sons may be saved without HmmersionJ'* 
Thus suicidically does he perpetually 
argue ; and the passage can afford his 
theory no support whatever.* But it is 
quite unnecessary to investigate any more 
of their '•'-scripture arguments :" for our 
brief examination of the chief passages 
on which they depend for the support of 
their system, has evinced, it is believed, 
that not the shadow of a reason can be 
adduced in its favor from the word of 
God. 



CHAPTER IV, 

EXAMINATION OP THE SYSTEM OF CAMP^- 
BELLISM. 

Having refuted the arguments which 
the Gampbellites profess to deduce from 
Scripture, (for they will not venture 
seriously to insinuate that reason or com- 
mon sense is in their favor,) we shalJ 
now proceed to a brief examination of 
their system ; taking its positions gener- 
ally in order as stated and illustrated in 
Chapter 11. 

* If Macknight had properly investigated 
this passage, he could never have given it the 
exposition which he has ; and which the Camp- 
beilites and other unthinking errorists have 
seized upon with avidity; asserting that '■'■As 
the water of the flood saved J^oah., so the water 
of baptism now saves mankind.''^ He translates 
it thus: "To which water, the antitype bap- 
tism," &c., and thus reasons: "The relative ';? 
(ivhich) being neuter its antecedent cannot be 
Kt0a)Tog {the ark,) which is feminine, butWog' 
[water] which is neuter." Now this is unpar- 
aonabla carelessness in a translator, who cer- 
tainly should be acquainted with the idiona 
from which he translates. Let the reader look 
at the Greek of Eph. 2:8. Gal. 4:19. PhiJ. 
1:28. Eph. 6:18. Gal. 3: 17. 1 Cor. 6: 11. 
2 Pet. 1:7, 8, &-c. &c. Old Piscator could 
have told him that the proper antecedent was 
the whole of the preceding verse; and that it 
was absurd to refer it to the water of the delvge^ 
which, while it saved none, destroyed many. 
"• Caeterum pronomen ;j> referendum est ad 
totam sententiam proxime praecedentem de 
servatis in area ocfo animabus. Quo minus 
autem pronomen i|j referatur ad proxime prae- 
cedens nomen uJ'a.To; res ipsa obstat : quia aqua 
diluvii non servavit quenquam, sed plurimos 
perdidit: hie autem sermo est de conserva- 
tione. Comment, in loco p. 752. The best 
MSS. also, instead of $ read o. 



AND REFUTED. 



37 



SECTION I. 

Can Christian Baptism he properly 
performed by Immersion? 

Mr. C, with that singular consistency 
for which he is so justly celebrated, after 
asserting that I am a Campbellite " in 
the superlative degree," (Biblic. Repos., 
1840, p. 488,) and that I advocate his 
leading principles, and "^o for immer- 
sion as baptism^^ and that " few of our 
(that is, Mr. Campbell's) warmest preach- 
ers have ever gone as far as the Rev. 
Mr. Landis," on these subjects ; (see 
Mill. Har. for 1839, p. 503,) yet asserts 
that "the secret of the whole matter" of 
my writing against him, is my displea- 
sure at his translating baptism^ immer- 
sion. (See p. 520.) And in Mill. Har. 
for 1840, p. 559, he says that even some 
"good Baptists" '-join with the most 
bigoted and intolerant Pjedobaptists, who 
cunningly, like Miller, of Princeton, and 
Kurtz, of Baltimore, and La?idis, of 
Pennsylvania^ seek to defame us on other 
points.) that our efforts in favor of be- 
lievers in immersion may not avail with 
your Society, (i. e. the Baptists.) I know 
these gentlemen so well as to know what 
they are about" Now Mr. C, without 
one particle of proof, and merely to neu- 
tralise the force of my arguments, as- 
serted that I was in favor of immersion. 
Yet see with what facility he can taJce 
the other side, when there is any neces- 
sity for so doing. He says that I am an 
advocate for immersion, and yet that I 
seek to defame him merely because he 
advocates it, and translates the word bap- 
tism by immersion. Truly Mr. C. loves 
consistency. 

The following Essays on Baptism, 
(the only ones which I ever published 
on that subject,) originally appeared in 
the Christian Observer, of Philadelphia. 
I republish them here, for they exhibit 
compendiously my thoughts on this sub- 
ject; and the reader will perceive that it 
is my serious belief, that Christian bap- 
tism CANNOT be PROPERLY administered 
by immersion* Psedobaptists have been 
told (by their Baptist brethren) quite 
often enough, that they are "unbaptised ;" 
though the whole analogy of Scripture 

* I do not think, however, that administering bap- 
tism by immersion so entirely vitiates the ordinance as 
to render a reiteration of it essentially necessary. 



is entirely against immersion as bap- 
tism. And if our Baptist friends, in- 
stead of abusing me, (as they have done 
since the appearance of these Essays,) 
would fairly reply to the argument, they 
Avould confer a particular favor upon 
many of their own communion. 

The first Essay relates to the mode^ 
and the second to the subjects, of Chris- 
tian Baptism. 

1. The Mode of Baptism. 

To the Editor of the Christian Observer : 

Having often been requested to give 
my views of baptism, inasmuch as it is 
known that my partialities in youth were 
in favor of the Anti-Paedobaptists, and 
especially latterly, when our Baptist 
brethren are pressing the subject upon 
the Christian public with a zeal, which 
if directed to the promotion of catholic 
Christianity, could not fail, under God, 
of producing the happiest results, [ hope 
I may not be misunderstood, if I present 
to the public, through your columns, a 
brief abstract of what I conceive to be 
the- Scripture doctrine of Baptism. 

In considering the question as to the 
modes, I hope I shall not be thought dis- 
respectful to great and good men, when 
I say I care not what any man has said 
or thought, any further than his views 
are plainly supported by the Bible, I 
hope, therefore, that I shall not be op- 
posed by mere human authorities. No 
one has a hig-her resfard for them than I 
have, in their appropriate sphere, but it 
is not their appropriate sphere to decide for 
my conscience what is the import of the 
word of God on this or any other question 
where God requires of me to think for 
m\''self And on this subject I offer, not 
my authority, but m.y arguments, of the 
validity of which every one is competent 
to judge for himself Let me not, then, 
be opposed by mere human authority. 

1. My first position, therefore, is that 
the Bible makes known one mode, and 
ONE only, of administering the ordi- 
nance of Christian baptism. 

All the questions that may be started 
in respect to the mode oi form of admin- 
istering this ordinance, resolve them- 
selves merely into the following: Is the 
water in Christian baptism to be applied 
to the subject, or the subject to be applied 
to the water, i. e. be dipped into it ? 



38 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 



My second position is, that the Bible 
invariable/ teaches that in the adminis- 
tration of baptism, the water is to be 
applied to the subject of the ordinance. 
A few of the arguments which sustain 
this position are the following: 

1. Baptism is spoken of as washing. 
Now the primary idea of washing is the 
application of water to the individual or 
thing washed. 

2. John baptized with, (not into) wa- 
ter. John 1: 31. Acts 1: 5. Matt. 3: 11. 
To evade the force of this it has been 
contended that the particle tv should be 
rendered into. But the latter clause of 
the verse (Math. 3: 11) shows the im- 
propriety of this rendering. For the 
baptism with the Holy Ghost is clearly 
an applicatio7i of the Spirit to the indi- 
vidual so baptized. And this baptism is 
confessedly analogous to that of water. 

3. The Israelites, who were baptized 
in the cloud, (1 Cor. 10: 1,) were sprinkled 
or baptized by an application of the wa- 
ter to them. The cloud passed from their 
front to their rear; Ex. 14: 19; and while 
doing so, rained upon them, as Asaph 
remarks, in speaking of this very event. 
Ps. 77: 16. 'The clouds poured out 
water.' 

4. The Israelites who were baptized 
in the sea, were also baptized by sprink- 
ling, for surely they were not immersed. 
Yet Paul says they were baptized, in the 
sea. Yet they went through the sea on 
dry ground. Exod. 14: 22. The strong 
east wind, (see v. 21,) could not but pro- 
duce a dashing of the spray, which sprin- 
kled them over. In no other way could 
they be affected by the waters of the sea. 
See V. 16,29. 

5. In Is. 52: the prophet speaks, among 
other things, of the joy occasioned by the 
gospel, and of the peace and purity of the 
Christian church, v. 7 — 12. And also of 
the humiliation and exaltation of Christ, 
and the success of his cause, v. 13 — 15. 
And he says that many nations are to be 
introduced into the Christian church. 
Now if we turn to Acts 2 : we find, (a 
few days after the ascension of Christ,) 
many nations present to hear the apos- 
tles. Not less than nineteen or twenty, 
are present by their representatives ; and 
3,000 of those representatives were at 
once introduced into the Christian church 
by the initiatory rite of baptism. Here, 



then, is the prophecy fulfilled. But how 
was the ordinance administered? The 
prophet will tell you. See Is. 52: 15. 
" So shall he sprinkle many nations," 
even at the beginning of the promulga- 
tion of the gospel. Was this prophecy 
ever fulfilled ? If so, then these nations 
received the initiatory rite of baptism by 
sprinJding. If it is not fulfilled, it is 
equally conclusive, for when they are 
converted, they are to be received into 
the Christian church by sprinkling. 

6. The Jews are yet to be converted, 
as all the ^ prophets testify. And when 
they are engrafted into the good olive, (or 
the church,) from which they were bro- 
ken off, they are of course to receive tlie 
ordinance of baptism. Ezekiel, in chap- 
ters 36, 37, speaks largely on the subject 
of their restoration and conversion to 
God. But in what way is the initiatory 
rite of baptism to be administered to 
them ? Let the prophet speak for him- 
self. " For I will take you from among 
the heathen," &c. Then will I sprinkle 
clean water upon you. A new heart also 
will I give you, &c. Ezek. 36: 24—26. 

7. The case of the jailor being bap- 
tized in the jail. Acts 16: 33, 34, and of 
Saul, who arose and was baptized, evi- 
dently where he stood, Acts 9: 18, needs 
no comment besides what the foregoing 
passages afford. They were evidently 
baptized by the water being applied to 
them, and not by being plunged into the 
water. 

8. Peter manifestly commanded water 
to be brought, in order that Cornelius and 
his family and friends, who had received 
the Holy Ghost, should be baptized. His 
words clearly infer this. See Acts 10: 47. 
"Can any man forbid water that these 
should be baptized?" No Baptist min- 
ister would employ such an expression 
on such an occasion. The only appro- 
priate language of such an one in such a 
case would be, " Can any man forbid us 
to go to the water that these should be 
immersed?" This instance, therefore, 
clearly implies that baptism was perform- 
ed by the application of water to the in- 
dividual baptized. It is precisely the 
language which any Presbyterian minis- 
ter would have employed in administering 
the ordinance to Cornelius. 

9. If we were not so emphatically told 
that John baptized the Jews with water. 



AND REPUTED. 



39 



(that is, applied the water to the subject 
of the ordinance,) the actual incredibility 
of their being immersed by him would 
plainly infer it. The vast multitudes 
who collected around him, manifestly 
went to hear him preach, without any 
thought of being baptized. They went 
out, and were baptized. Matt. 3. After 
they went they were convicted, and ap- 
plied for baptism. They went of course 
without any change of raiment. No one 
will surely suppose that they could have 
been immersed with their clothing on, 
and surely no one will contend that this 
promiscuous assemblage of men and wo- 
men were immersed naked. Even if we 
were not informed so plainly, therefore, 
that John baptized, not into^ but with wa- 
ter, it would be inconceivable that they 
should have been immersed. 

10. It would be inconceivable also 
that the many nations who were received 
into the church on the day of Pentecost 
could have been immersed, even if the 
prophet had not so plainly foretold that 
they should be sprinkled. At thdt sea- 
son of the year water was exceedingly 
scarce in Jerusalem — the brook K^dron 
was dry, and besides all this, the Jordan, 
is sixteen or eisfhteen miles distant from 
that city. 

11. Matt. 3: 11, and other places, as- 
sure us, that the baptism with the Spirit 
and with water are analogous. Now the 
baptism of the Spirit was always hy an 
application of the Spirit to the believer. 
See Acts 1:5. Is. 44: 3. Joel 2: 28. 
Ezek. 39: 29. Is. 32: 15. Acts 11 : 16. 
If analogous, therefore, water also is to 
be applied in baptism. 

12. The fact that the Baptist brethren 
have felt compelled to make a new ver- 
sion of those passages which speak of 
baptism, is a concession every way satis- 
factory that our present excellent ver- 
sion of the Scriptures does not justify 
the administration of baptism by immer- 
sion.* 

* It may be further added here, that very 
early in the Christian Church, it was supposed 
by the Jewish converts that baptism was in 
and of itself purifying in its effects upon the 
person baptized. The idea was taken from 
the Jewish ceremonial purifications by the 
application of water. Hence BctTrri^o) and ka- 
Qotgi^a. came to be used interchangeably. 
Thus, when saving virtue was (as the Church 
became corrupted,) attributed to baptism, 



The few passages of Scripture which 
our Baptist brethren have alleged as 
teaching a mode of baptism different from 
that of applying the water to the subject, 
or of baptizing into water, and not with 
it, can be easily shown not to conflict 
with the foregoing representations. 

And first : As to those passages which 
speak of going down into and coming 
up out of the water : they prove nothing 
as to the mode. The Jews, when they 
baptised themselves in the running 
stream, knelt down in it, and with their 
hands threw the water back over their 
heads, and thus sprinkled themselves to 
cleanse themselves from ceremonial de- 
filement. They do this still. Here, 
then, is going down into and coming up 
out of the water without immersion. 
And to this day, pilgrims are often seen 
to go down into Jordan, (in the very 
place where tradition says that Christ 
was baptized,) and, kneeling down, the 
administrator takes up a little water and 
applies it to their persons. They are 
baotized iii water, and yet not into but 
with it. If, then, the particle sv in the 
first clause of Matt. 3: 11 were even 
translated in, it would prove nothing in 
favor of immersion. 

2. Jno. 3:5, so far from favoring im- 
mersion, as our Baptist brethren assert, 
would prove the very opposite. " Born 
of water and of the Spirit.^'' How is a 
person born of the Spirit? Why, it 
is shed down upon him, or applied to 
him, as we have shown by many refer- 
ences. If then, baptism be here referred 
to, the analogy clearly requires that we 
understand bemg born of water, to be no 

and the water was supposed to be truly puri- 
fying in its effects, and the monstrous dogma 
of baptismal regeneration became fully de- 
veloped, it was concluded that the more water 
the better; and that it should be applied to 
the whole body, that the regeneration might 
be complete. ,^nd the consequence was, bap- 
tism came ultimately to be performed by 
imm,ersion. Nor was the original custom of 
baptising by effusion resorted to afterwards, 
except in special cases. Hence, too, it came to 
pass, that both infants and adults were im- 
mersed naked., [as all who are acquainted with 
ecclesiastical antiquity will admit,] for it was 
feared that their garments might prevent the 
water from reaching every part of the body, 
and thus the regeneration be incomplete. 
Thus, amid the growing corruptions of a dark 
and erroneous age, the custom originated of 
administering baptism by immersion. 



40 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



more nor less than having the water ap- 
plied to the person.* 

3. The passages in Rom. 6 : 3, and 
Col. 2: 12, contain no allusion to the 
mode of baptism. In burial, no one ever 
■■plunges a body into the earth. Nor is 
the mode of interment alike among all 
nations. The Romans in Paul's time 
burnt the body. Some deposit it in a 
vault; others hang it up till the flesh de- 
Cays. It is impossible, therefore, that an 
allusion to the mode of baptism could be 
universally understood, by a reference to 
burial. But the apostle is not speaking 
of external baptism, but of internal. 
That is, by internal baptism we have 
become partakers of Christ's death. It 
is a baptism into his death^ not into 
water, that is spoken of Hence, he 
says, " We are buried by baptism into 
his deathP There is no allusion what- 
ever to water or to a mode, any more 
than there is in the figures of planting, 
and crucifixion, by which the apostle 
here further elucidates his meaning.f 

4. The only other passage upon which 
remark is called for, is John 3 : 23 : 
"John was baptizing, &.C., because there 
was much loater (or many waters, ?to:^.?ia 
v8ata) there." But how does this prove 
that he baptized into and not with water ? 
Being surrounded perpetually with the 
greatest multitude that ever asssembled 
around a human being for instruction, 
(Matt. 3 : 5,) had they no use for much 
water, except for the ordinance of bap- 
tism ? Could they have assembled 
around the many sweet and beautiful 
springs of ^non for no other purpose 
than to be immersed into them? Did 
their camels, their horses, and asses, need 
no water 1 Did they need none for 
drinking, and for culinary and other pur- 
poses ? How strange is the conception 
that this passage necessarily infers a 
mode of administering the ordinance of 
baptism, otherwise than by applying it 
to the subject; and that merely because 
there was a large quantity of water here ; 
and that, therefore, John must have here 

* The reader will have seen in Chap. III. that I do 
not believe water baptism to be here referred to. But 
for the sake of the argument, I have conceded that it 
might be. For, on the principle assumed by the Bap- 
tists, it militates directly against them. 

t A most excellent criticism on Rom. 6 : 3, Coll. 2 : 
12, by Prest, Beecher, may be found in the Am. Bihlic. 
Repos. for July, 1841 ; to which I would beg leave to 
refer our Baptist brethren. 



baptized into it, instead of with it, as he 
did elsewhere : See Acts 1:5; Jno. 1 : 
31 ; Matt. 3:11. 

Our Methodist brethren at camp-meet- 
ings do not ordinarily administer the or- 
dinance of baptism in any way ; and yet 
they always assemble (if possible) where 
there is much water. I recollect an inci- 
dent in point, which occurred some time 
since in Pennsylvania. The Methodists 
having been urged to hold a camp-meet- 
ing in a certain place where there was a 
large and good spring of water, consent- 
ed. After the meeting was over, a friend 
of mine inquired of one of their leading 
men, whether they intended to have the 
meeting there on the following year ? — 
" No, by no means ; we must go where 
there is more water. Though the spring 
was so large and good, we suffered most 
intensely (said he,) from thirst. The 
constant demand for water for drinking, 
for culinary purposes, and for watering 
the horses, was such, that, for the last 
day or two, the spring was one continued 
puddle of mud." And yet, in the face of 
facts like these, of whose existence every 
one is aware, our Baptist brethren wdll 
persist in maintaining that John could 
not have chosen the many waters of 
JEnon for any reason other than that he 
might have conveniences for immersing 
the people. Credat Judceus Apella: — 
Non Ego. 

I have stated these arguments and con- 
siderations with candor, and with kind- 
ness and deference towards those who 
profess not to agree with me. If they 
are replied to, I hope it may be in a like 
spirit. I have no object in view but the 
promotion of union and harmony in the 
body of Christ. And my earnest prayer 
is, that God would shed down the choic- 
est influences of his Spirit upon all who 
may read this article : that, whether they 
do, or do not, accord with the position 
here assumed, they and the writer may 
be guided into the saving knowledge of 
all essential truth. 

II. Who are proper subjects for Baptism. 

To the editor of the Christian Observer : 

In the very brief abstract of the argu- 
ment that I can here present, I shall aim 
only to illustrate a few passages of the 
New Testament, which I shall refer to 
presently. 



AND REFUTED. 



41 



The Jewish church from time imme- 
morial, not only circumcised, but baptized 
their proselytes. Aben Ezra traces it as 
for back as Gen. 35 : 2, where the young 
women of Shechem became members of 
the family of Israel. And Maimonides, 
the great expounder of the Jewish law, 
affirms that " baptism was in the wilder- 
ness before the giving of the law." He 
refers to the baptism unto Moses, i. e. in- 
to his disciplhie. (See also, 1 Cor. 10 : 
2.) It was also a principle universally 
recosrnized amonsf the Jews, that " no 
man is a proselyte, until he is circumcis- 
ed and baptized.'^ Baptism was insepa- 
rably joined with circumcision in the ad- 
mission of Gentiles into the church. 

In the same manner did they receive 
the families of proselytes^ — wives, serv- 
ants, children and all. The male servants 
and children were circumcised, and bap- 
tized—while the females were baptized 
only. The truth of these representa- 
tions cannot be successfully called in 
question.* Now Christ in receiving the 
Gentiles into his church, rejected the cir- 
cumcision and retained the baptism. — 
The disciples were all Jews, and of 
course, familiar with the custom of bap- 
tizing proselytes and their families. And 
to these disciples, possessing these views 
of the baptism of the Gentiles, he says, 
(without any explanation or qualifica- 
tion,) " Go teach the nations, baptizing 
them.^^ Nor is there in the whole New 
Testament, a single restriction or qualifi- 
cation of this command, and accordingly 
we find them, when they received the 
head of a family into the church, invari- 
ably baptizing his household^ if his house- 
hold were with him : Precisely in accord- 
ance with the custom of the Jewish 
church in receiving proselytes. See the 
cases of Cornelius in Acts 10, and of 
Lydia and the Jailer in Acts 16 : 15, 33, 
and of Stephanus in 1 Cor. 1 : 16. And 
hence also we meet in the New Testa- 
ment with such passages as the follow- 
ing: Acts 2: 39. I Cor. 7: 14, &c.— 
These passages thus illustrated, speak 

* That baptism was no new thing in Israel, in the 
time of John, is clear from John 1 : 25, where the del- 
egates of the Sanhedrim do not inquire of John as to 
X\i&import of his baptism, but merely as to the authori- 
ty of the Baptizer. 

6 



for themselves ; and taken in connection 
with the foregoing, are perfectly conclu- 
sive. The very absence, therefore, in 
the New Testament of any positive pre- 
cept as to the baptism of the seed of be- 
lievers ; as well as of any restriction of 
baptism to the head of the household 
alone, is itself the strongest confirmation 
of the truth of the position here illustra- 
ted. If there had been any change 
made by Christ, in the custom which the 
Jews observed of receiving the Gentiles 
by baptism, it would have been specified 
somewhere in the New Testament. It 
is not specified, however, and therefore 
no such change was made. 

There is, besides the foregoing, proof 
amounting to demonstration, that such 
was truly the custom of the primitive 
church. The old Syriac Interpreter, 
(the date of which Walton, Leusden, 
Lowth, Kennicot, and others, assign to 
the first century.) translates the word 
household by " children.^^ '• Lydia was 
baptized, and her children." " The 
jailer and his children" &c. &c. This 
testimony, coming from the very region 
where the apostles labored, and being 
given before all of them were dead, is 
conclusive. 

So also Irenaus, who was born about 
the close of the first century, says, " In- 
fants and little ones, and children, and 
youth, and the aged, are regenerated to 
God." The expression, '■' renascuntur in 
Dewm" refers to baptism; for he after- 
wards quotes Matt. 28: 19, and says in 
relation to it, " Our Lord gave to his dis- 
ciples this commission of regenerating, 
i. e. of baptizing. — Justin Martyr, who 
lived in the first half century after the 
death of the apostle John, says that '• In- 
fants are washed with water in the name 
of the Father, and Son, and Spirit." — 
O rig en, (who lived within a century of 
the apostolic age,) a man of unequalled 
learning, \^'ho had travelled a great deal, 
and corresponded Avith the churches ex- 
tensively in all countries, says, " Little 
children are baptized agreeably to the 
usasfe of the church ; who received it 
from, the apostles, that this ordinance 
should be administered to infants " The 
testimony of Cyprian, Tertullian, Pela- 
gius, Augustm, &C.5 is no less explicit. 



42 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED 



SECTION II. 

What is saving faith? 

We have seen what is the Campbell- 
ite view of faith, and its object. Mr. C. 
it is true, has taken care to advocate sev- 
eral different views of the matter, for he 
is determined to be ready for any one 
who will accuse him of error on this 
subject. See chapter II., section 2, above. 
But whatever view of faith he may take 
for the time being, he utterly rejects the 
doctrine of justification by faith, as we 
have seen above ; and unites with the 
Papists, Puseyites and Mormons in ca- 
lumniating the Reformation on the sub- 
ject of this Articulus vel staritis vel ca- 
dentis ecclesia.. 

The view however, which he for the 
most part maintains in his controversy 
with me, and in his preface to his New 
Testament, (and has been understood 
most frequently to advance,) is that faith, 
so far as it has any connexion with hu- 
man salvation is the belief that Jesus 
Christ is the Messiah. In my Essay, I 
had made the following remark: " Mr. 
Campbell asserts that to believe that Je- 
sus is the Messiah, the son of God, is to 
believe on him to the saving of the soul." 
This he admits is rightly attributed to 
him; and he attempts to defend it, (after 
quoting 1 Jno. 5 : 1,) by saying, "Surely, 
then, John was a Campbellite! and his 
first general epistle genuine Campbell- 
ism!!" Mill. Har. for 1839, p. 486. 

It is amusing to follow Mr. C. in his 
proof texts ; for ordinarily they over- 
throw the very doctrines which he en- 
deavors to sustain. For example, he 
thus quotes 1 Jno. 5:1: " Whosoever 
believeth that Jesus is the Christ (the 
Messiah,) is born of God ;" though he 
has been exerting all his ingenuity to 
prove that no one can be born of God, 
until he is immersed. But now, when 
he has occasion for a text which proves 
the opposite of this, he makes no scru- 
ple to quote it; and to put it in italics 
and capitals, as above. But the faith 
here spoken of by the apostle is not a 
mere naked belief, as Mr. C. pretends ; 
but, (as the words which he himself has 
put in capitals evince,) a faith which re- 
sults from the mighty operation of God 
upon the soul ; or as Howe remarks, {in 
loco,) " A lively^ efficacious^ unitive^ soul- 



transforming^ and obediential faith in 
Jesus as the Christ ; which is elsewhere 
made the effect of the regenerating 
'power and grace of God. Jno. 1 : 
12, 13." 

In my former Essay, (Biblic. Repos. 
of 1839,) I had made the following state- 
ments respecting the views of this sect 
on the subjects which Mr. C, in his re- 
ply, has not attempted to refute, though 
he has grossly abused me for making 
them.* Before proceeding to the formal 
discussion of the question, I will state 
them here ; and the reader can judge 
whether they are not sustained by the 
extracts from Mr. C.'s writings given in 
Chapter II. 

The faith which the Campbellites con- 
tend for, has, confessedly, no connection 
whatever with regeneration; for a man 
may exercise this faith fully, and yet be 
truly unregenerate, and as much a child 
of hell as the vilest infidel. 

They teach, too, that faith has no real 
or vital connection with the pardon of 
sin; for a man may exercise it in the 
fullest manner, and yet be unpardoned. 
The proposition, therefore, that " we are 
justified by faith," is, with this sect, 
intrinsically absurd. 

From the preceding extracts, it also 
appears, that agreeably to Campbellism, 
a sinner believes to the saving of the 
soul, by his own unaided efforts, and 
without the agency of the Spirit of God. 
In fact, Mr. C. repeatedly ridicules the 
idea of the agency of the third person of 
the Trinity either in the exercise of 
saving faith or in regeneration.! The 

* See Harbinger for 1839, p. 493. 

t To this allegation, Mr. C. replies, that it is incor- 
rect ; but the reader may judge for himself, from the 
following language. He says, " It is one of the mon- 
strous abortions of a purblind theology, for any human 
being to be wishing for spiritual aid to be born again. 
Transfer such an idea to the first birth, and to what 
an absurdity are we reduced!" Christ. Bapt., Vol. 
III., J\ro. 8. And in Christ. Rest., p. 279, 280, he thus 
speaks of the idea that regeneration is alone through 
the operation of the Holy Spirit : " It is orthodox, 
spiritual, physical, mystical, and metaphysical regen- 
eration." " The aisurdity and licentioxLsness of such 
a view of the great worlc of renovation, we had 
thought so glaring, that no editor in the West would 
have had boldness to have published it." And on p. 
364, he says, speaking of the Holy Spirit being the au- 
thor of faith, " Assistance to believe! This is a meta- 
physical dream. How can a person be assisted to be- 
lieve?" What a pity that the man who prayed, " Lord, 
I believe, help thou my unbelief," Mark 9 : 24 ; or the 
disciples who prayed, ^^ Lord increase our faith," Luke 
17: 5, did not know this? How easily Mr. C could 



AND REFUTED. 



43 



faith which he contends for, is, he says, 
"purely historical." He further says, 
" // by your own efforts^ you can believe 
that Jesus is the Messiah, by your oivn 
efforts you can believe on him to the 
saving of the soul. This is saving 
FAITH." Christ. Bapt., Vol. III., No. 9. 

In presenting a popular view of this 
subject, I shall sliow, first, that a mere 
intellectual assent, or belief, is not saving 
faith, in the Gospel acceptance of the 
term; and secondly^ I shall exhibit the 
Scriptural doctrine of faith. 

1. Saving faith is not a mere intellec- 
tual exercise. 

In determining this question, an illus- 
tration given by Dr. O. Jennings is in 
point. A young, but intelligent female, 
was urged by a proselyting follower of 
Mr. Campbell to be immersed; and was 
told that if she " historically believed the 
Gospel, or the history of our Lord Jesus 
Christ," it was all the faith required. 
She replied, that the could not doubt the 
reality, or the sincerity of her belief of 
all that is contained in the Bible; that 
she w^as as conscious of the existence of 
this belief, as she was of her own exist- 
ence; but that she was no less certain, 
that this belief v/as different from that 
faith which is the peculiar characteristic i 
of all the true disciples of Christ, because i 
it exerted no suitable or lasting- influence 
either upon her heart or life. The reply ' 
was found to be unanswerable." See i 
Jennings' " Debate on Campbellism,'^ 
p. 39. 

There are also many facts in the Bible 
which may be adduced in illustration. 
What were the examples of faith which 
Jesus commended? Were they of this 
character? A reference to two or three 
of them will decide. The Centurion 
spoken of in Mark 8, who besought Je- 
sus to have compassion on his servant, 
had his faith highly commended by 
Christ. For, when .Tesus, in answer to 
his petition, said, " I will come and heal 
him;" he repUes, "Speak the word only 
and my servant shall be healed;" and he 
presented an illustration which exhibited 
his confidence in Christ in a striking 
manner. Upon which Jesus said: " Veri- 

have removed this difficulty. See also Rom. 12 : 3, 6; 
1 Cor. 12 : 9 ; Gal. 5 : 22 ; 1 Tim. 1 : 14 ; Heb. 12 : 2 ; 2 
Pet. 1:1; Acts 15:8, 9 ; 1 Pet, 1 : 5, for the Gospel 
Tiew of this matter for which Mr. C, indisputably, has 
no sympathy. 



ly I say unto you, (addressing the multi- 
tudes around him,) I have not found 
so great faith, no, not in Israel." Was 
this Centurion's faith a mere simple " be- 
lief ^^ ? Mr. C. would not venture to 
affirm it. It was a confident persuasion 
of the goodness and almighty power of 
Christ, that was truly operative, and led 
to entire dependence upon him. And 
thus operative is genuine faith always. 
It is not a simple belief of some proposi- 
tion, which, if connected with baptism, 
procures remission of sin, and if discon- 
nected with it, leaves the soul unjustified; 
but it is ever productive. 

Another case is mentioned in Mark 9, 
where a father brings his son to the dis- 
ciples to be healed. They could not 
heal him however ; for though they fully 
believed Christ to be the Messiah, their 
faith was in this case inoperative, (see 
also Mark 4: 37—40. Luke 24: &c.) 
The father then took his son to Jesus, 
who told him that if he believed^ all things 
were possible, &c. The father replied, 
"Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief;" 
and his faith (which was clearly of the 
same nature as that of the Centurion,) 
was approved, for his son was healed. 
So also in Matt. 15, the Avoman of Ca- 
naan is represented as praying in behalf 
of her afflicted daughter. Jesus put her 
faith to a severe trial : yet it stood the 
test ; for it was not a mere simple beliei!, 
like that contended for by Mr. C, but a 
true and firm confidence. Hence the 
Saviour said, " O woman, great is thy 
faith ; be it unto thee even as thou wilt," 
V. 21. See also Heb. 11. 

On the contrary, the utter inadequacy 
of this " historical belief," for which Mr. 
C. contends, is equally apparent. Take, 
for example John 12: 42. "Among the 
chief rulers also many believed on him, 
but because of the Pharisees they did not 
confess him, lest they should be put out 
of the synagogue : for they loved the 
praise of men more than the praise of 
God." Here, then, is full "historical 
belief" in Christ, connected with a "love 
for the praise of men more than the praise 
of God," and with a slavish fear of the 
enemies of Christ. Now it is obvious to 
every one that, as such a " faith connected 
with immersion," or baptism, is all that 
Mr. C. requires in order to " being bom 
again," or " to become a son of God," all 



44 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED 



that was necessary, agreeably to Mr. C, 
to constitute these rulers "true disciples" 
was merely to take away their ground of 
fear ; and that if they could have lived 
under such a government as ours, they 
would have been true disciples. For if 
we -only have this "belief in Christ," and 
"are immersed," this is all that is re- 
quisite, says he, to constitute us true 
disciples. 

Then it is further apparent that a mere 
belief of the facts recorded in the Gospel, 
is not that christian grace of which we 
read so often, from such passages as the 
following. Paul prays that the Roman 
christians might " be filled with joy and 
peace in believing;''^ (Rom. 15: 13.) 
which certainly implies that joy and 
peace are distinct from a mere belief; else 
why thus pray ? To the same purpose 
Peter says that "believing, we rejoice 
with joy unspeakable and full of glory." 
1 Pet. 1: 8. But if this were consequent 
upon mere assent, why speak of it thus 
as something distinguishing. 

But that something more is requisite 
besides a mere rational assurance, or cer- 
tainty of the truth of the Gospel, to win 
and overcome the heart of man, is clear 
from the whole history of the Bible. Can 
any suppose that there was one person 
among the people of Israel at Sinai, who 
could have had the least doubt that their 
law was divine, and that Jehovah had 
proclaimed it to them ? And yet how 
headlong do they rush into idolatry even 
against its very letter. So in regard to 
God's constant dealing with that people. 
And who among the multitudes that fol- 
lowed our Lord, could find room to doubt 
that he came from God, and taught divine 
truth ? Yet how fcAV really received him 
in the Bible acceptation of that term ? 
And Isaiah 53: 1, (applied to Christ by 
his apostles,) shows that the saving be- 
lief of the Gospel ^h-eporf^ is connected 
loith the revelation of the " arm of the 
Lord.^^ Hence we read of those who 
"believe according to the working of his 
mighty power. ''^ Eph. 1: 19. "iVo man 
can say that Jesus is Lord^ but by the 
Holy Ghost:' 1 Cor. 12: 3. See also 
John 6: 63, with verses 35, and 65; also 
eh. 7: 39, and Is. 6. 

Nothing could be a clearer refutation 
of the Campbellite doctrine, than these 
express declarations on this subject. And 



the grievous and soul-ruining mistake of 
these men arises from thoughtlessly sup- 
posing that a rational certainty which is 
sufficient to satisfy the judgment and si- 
lence all its objections, must necessarily 
be sufficient to overcome the opposite 
and corrupt inclinations of that heart, 
which is "enmity against God." But 
who does not know that a man may have 
ever so great a degree of the- certainty of 
any thing which is contrary to the inclin- 
ations of his wicked heart, and yet that 
he needs more than the mere evidence of 
what has made him certain, to determine 
his will efficaciously against it. Can a 
man be more certain of any thing than he 
is that he must die ? and yet how few 
are made thereby even to think but one 
moment seriously of death, and of the 
consequences which must then result to 
them should they not have abandoned 
their sins ? This point is so plain that 
we deem further illustration of it useless. 

2. We are now prepared to consider 
the true nature of saving faith. 

We invariably fall into error, when we 
attempt to discuss this subject, without 
bringing into the account that man is de- 
praved in heart and understanding ; and 
is represented as at enmity with God, 
Rom, 8: 7; and can neither discern spir- 
itual things, 1 Cor. 2: 14; nor do the 
things that he would, Rom. 7: 18. These 
passages contain no metaphysical, una- 
vailable distinctions, but statements of 
plain matters of fact: and their truth is 
recognized in the clearest manner by our 
Saviour himself. John 3: 3, 7, and chap. 
6: 44, 65. And hence saving faith, 
though in its exercise, it is of course re- 
ferred to man ; in its origin, (which the 
Campbellites, Papists, and Puseyites, al- 
ways confound with its mere exercise,) it 
is attributed to the power and efficacy of 
the Holy Spirit. 

The logical meaning of the term faith 
is ["'tief: but this respects only its exer- 
cise, and not its origin, which the admit- 
ted depravity of man requires us to bring 
into the account in a discussion of the 
subject. And even Mr. Campbell, (as 
we have seen,) in a moment when truth 
had somewhat the ascendency over love 
for his darling system, is compelled to 
admit that there is a clear distinction be- 
tween the term and the thing itself And 
there is truly a clear and eternal distinc- 



AND REPUTED'. 



45 



tion : and the necessity for making it, ari- 
ses from the fallen condition of human 
nature. In his original state man (as in 
his glorified state,) could, with ease, act 
agreeably with the convictions of an en- 
lightened understanding and conscience, 
but it is not so in his fallen and depraved 
condition. For, as Howe remarks, " The 
degeneracy of man, doth generally and 
principally lie in the interruption and 
breach of the order between the faculties 
ihat should lead and guide, and those 
which should obey and follow : the order 
IS battered and broken between faculty 
and faculty, between the practical judg- 
ment (which is the same with conscience) 
and the executive power, which should 
act and do according to the dictate and 
judgment of that conscience: Here is 
the maim ; it doth not lie so much in a 
mere ignoronce, or in a mere inaptitude 
to know, or an incapacity of knowing the 
things that are needful to be known ; but 
it lies chiefly in this, that the things we 
do know, signify no more with men than 
if they knew them not ; the inferior pow- 
ers do not obey and follow the superior," 
p. 765. Hence, saving faith means in 
the Bible, as we shall show, something 
more than simple belief: it has not its 
seat in the understanding alone, but is al- 
so an affection of the heart. JFor as the 
Scriptures employ new words to express 
new ideas, so they also often employ old 
terms in a sense peculiar to themselves. 

That savin Of faith is of the nature of 
confidence is clear from the definition of 
Paul, in Heb. 11 : 1, and from all the 
examples presented in that chapter. And 
that such confidence cannot be necessa- 
rily inferred from simple belief (as Mr. 
C. pretends,) is clear: 1. From his own 
distinction above referred to ; and 2, 
From many passages of the Bible. One 
already quoted (John 12: 42.) abundant- 
ly evinces this. For though the Rulers 
are expressly said to believe in. Chrit; 
they feared to trust or confide in him. — 
See also Acts 8: 13. _ James 2: 19. — 
3. It is clear also from the metaphorical 
terms by which faith is described, (as 
Dick remarks, Theol. II. p. 180.) For 
It is called a receiving of Christ, a com- 
ing to him, a fleeing for refuge to lay 
hold of the hope set before us, &c. &c. ; 
And in the Old Testament it is called a 
trusting in the Lord. When Mr. C. 



therefore, so repeatedly and so indecent- 
ly ridicules the idea of the Holy Spirit 
assisting the soul to receive, or lay hold 
of Christ, (or in other words, to exercise 
saving faith,) it is evident that his mirth 
is as misplaced as it is impious. 

From this plain view of the subject, it 
is manifest, why the Bible represents 
God as the Author or originator of sav- 
ing faith. See Phil. 1 : 6, 29. Matt. 16: 
17. 2 Cor. 3: 5. Phil. 2: 13. John 
6: 44, 45. Matt. 11: 25. 1 Cor. 2: 
4, 5. Gal. 5: 22. 2 Thess. 1:11. 
Rom. 10: 20; andJohnl: 12,13. And 
the Holy Spirit, (who is the direct agent 
in this work,) ordinarily operates through 
the truth, and by means of it, in convert- 
ing and renewing a moral agent ; though 
he can operate without it, as in the case 
of infants. Hence, if the sinner will se- 
riously direct his mind to the contempla- 
tion of revealed truth, (the things "which 
belong to his peace, Luke, 19: 40, 41.) 
the operation of the Spirit, or his influ- 
ence, will not be wanting. This the 
sinner is called upon to do ; and hence 
faith is said to be commanded. " This is 
his commandment, that ye believe on the 
name of his Son, Jesus Christ." " Re- 
pent ye, and believe the Gospel." 1 Jno. 
3: 23. Mark 1 : 14, 15. See this view 
illustrated in Zech. 12: 10. In its exer- 
cise, therefore, saving faith (as Dwight 
remarks, Theol. II p. 314,) is always a 
speculative belief, joined w-ith a cordial 
consent to the truth, and a cordial appro- 
bation of the object, which that truth re- 
spects. It is true, faith in its exercise 
must be, (as Mr. C. asserts,) in propor- 
tion to the clearness of the evidence be- 
fore the mind. But it is hence, involun- 
tary ? and are we in no way responsible 
for our belief? If a man may have all 
the evidence before him in a given case, 
and yet neglects to obtain it, is he excu- 
sable for his want of faith 1 Who would 
say that a jury, w^ho had rendered an in- 
correct verdict, and yet had decided ac- 
curately upon the evidence that they had 
considered, but who through gross inatten- 
tion neglected to consider the most import- 
ant part thereof, were excusable merely be- 
cause they could render no other verdict 
from the evidence which they did regard ? 
It is true that from this evidence they 
could render no other verdict ; but every 
man would say that they were guilty for 



46* 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED 



not having rendered a different verdict, 
because through, inattention they neglect- 
ed to consider that portion of the evidence 
which would have led them to a different 
decision. And thus the sinner who ne- 
glects to attend to the truth of God, is 
guilty for his very want of saving faith. 
For if he would seriously contemplate 
his duty, as exhibited in that truth through 
which the Holy Spirit operates, and thus 
look upon Christ whom his sins have 
pierced, he would mourn ; the healthful 
and saving influence of the Spirit would 
accompany his contemplation. Zech. 12 : 
10. Is. 45: 22.* 

But it may be thought that " If Mr. C. 
in defining faith, distinguishes between 
the term and thing itself^ may he not also 
ascribe the origin of the thing itself to 
the spirit and the exercise simply to man ; 
inconsistent as this would be with his oth- 
er declarations ? " I should be truly sor- 
ry to do Mr. C. the injustice of imputing 
to him what he does not avow, and 
therefore at the risk of wearying the 
reader's patience, I shall present his view 
of this one point here, more fully than 
we have done in Chapter II. He does 
profess to make a clear distinction be- 
tween faith and its origin, — but he as- 
cribes both equally to man, and rejects 
all idea of the special operation of God's 
Spirit in producing it. He wishes to be 
regarded as sound in this matter, but a 
child can see that his language is plainly 
deceptive. Here is his own explanation : 
" I reason about faith as I do about every 
thing else. Faith is something. It is 
an effect: it must have a cause. But the 
cause is one thing, and the effect another. 
Faith is the belief of testimony ; but it 

IS FIRST BELIEF IN THE TESTIFIER. I 

must believe the witness to be a man of 
veracity, or I cannot believe his testimo- 
ny." And an illustration which he 
gives of his view on the same page, shows 
what he means by this distinction : " I 
may sometimes believe Mr. Landis, but I 
am certain, I do not believe on him, nor 

* The question whether the Holy Spirit is not the 
originator of that very seriousness which leads the sin- 
ner to such a contemplation of the truth as is above de- 
scribed, need not be discussed here. The fact, how- 
ever, is unquestionable. He is the Author of every holy 
exercise or serious thought, that the sinner ever had, 
for he always operates wherever the Gospel is preach- 
ed. No sinner ever repented or was converted without 
His influence. But see note A. at the end. 



in him. I have no confidence in him." 
Mill. Har. 1839, 487. 

Here then is Mr. C.'s view of faith as 
cause and effect. Each is alike attributed 
by him to man alone. The cause is " be- 
lief of the testifier ;" and the " effect" is 
confidence. The Spirit is in no way re- 
cognized in the work, any further than 
that he is the author of the word or testi- 
mony believed. And even this aspect of 
the matter Mr. C. seems to reject in terms 
when he says, " Now the special faith of 
the New Institution is belief in the testi- 
mony of Jesus concerning himself; or it 
is the belief of the testimony of the wit- 
nesses concerning him: the consummation 
of which is belief faith, or confidence in 
Am." Ibid. p. 487. This is sufficiently 
explicit, and taken in connexion with the 
fact that he ridicules the idea of receiving 
from the Spirit of God " Assistance to 
believe," can leave no one in doubt as to 
whom he ascribes "both the beginning 
and consummation" of saving faith. And 
as the special agency of the Spirit is thus 
dispensed with in Mr. C.'s view of faith, 
so by his own words, it is dispensed with 
in his view of religion, — as he makes 
this to consist in faith and ordinances. — 
" In the present administration of the 
kingdom of God, faith is the principle, 
and ordinances the means of all spiritu- 
al enjoyment." Christ. Rest. p. 177. — 
And now let the reader calmly and logi- 
cally decide whether this whole view 
does not exclude the special agency of 
the Spirit of God from religion as it does 
from faith ? Yea, even " spiritual en- 
joyment" is derived from a faith, which 
the Spirit is the origin of, no further than 
that he merely testifies in the written 
word, the truths which the sinner be- 
lieves ! 

That Mr. C. may be inconsistent with 
himself on this subject, as he is on all 
others, it would be folly to doubt. But it 
does seem to me, that this is his most ma- 
tured view. And in his Review of my 
Essay, he scouts the idea of his having 
abandoned any of his heretical sentiments, 
and says that the reason why some have 
thought so, is, because they themselves 
are coming over to him ; " like the pas- 
sengers in a ship approaching the land, 
to whom the land appears as though it 
approached them." Har. 1839, p. 484. — 
He does speak of spiritual joy and enjoy- 



AND REFUTED. 



4?t 



ment, but he derives them from faith ; 
and this he attributes to the sinner alone, 
both as to its " cause and effect." He as- 
serts that " the human spirit cannot he 
shaped, or disposed^ or new created^ or 
new modified by another spirit working- 
upon it, as we operate upon material 
things ; and that it can only he moved, 
disposed, neio created hy truth apprehen- 
ded and embraced: and whether this 
truth, real or supposed, be presented by- 
spirits or men, by God or by Satan ; phy- 
sically, by words, signs, tokens, sugges- 
tions, temptations, it can operate only 
morally or by motive upon the soul." 
Christ. Rest. p. 378. And on the same 
page, he utterly rejects the idea of the 
soul being regenerated " in a moment ; — 
a doctrine which would of course be 
subversive of his whole hypothesis. — 
Then on p. 365, he denies that there is 
anything i^ko. ''^ a faith wrought in the 
heart," and says "you might as well talk 
of light, or seeing wrought in the eye; 
of sound, or hearing wrought in the ear ; 
of taste wrought in the tongue, or of feel- 
ing wrought in the hand." And calls 
upon you to "mention any person of 
whom it is said, that the Holy Spirit en- 
abled him to believe" that is, as he ex- 
plains it, effecting " an internal operation 
upon the mind to produce faith." 

As this is his most matured view, so it 
was advanced by him at the beginning of 
his persecuting career. In Vol. I. p. 49 
of his " Christian Baptist" he says, 
" The popular belief of a regeneration 
previous to faith, or a knowledge of the 
Gospel, is replete with mischief Similar 
to this is a notion that obtains amongst 
many of a '•law work^ or some terrible 
process of terror and despair through 
which a person must pass, as through the 
pious Bunyan's slough of Despond, be- 
fore he can believe the Gospel. It is all 
EQUIVALENT to this; that a man must be- 
come a desponding, trembling infidel, be- 
fore he can become a believer."* 

With Mr. C. therefore, saving or jus- 
tifying faith results not from the regener- 
ation of man by the Holy Ghost, nor 
from any operation of the Spirit upon the 
heart of man ; but in its origin and exer- 
cise it is attributable to man alone. How 

* The Romish bishop Kenrick quotes this passage 
with an evident transport of approbation. He is very 
partial to his brother Campbell. 



utterly inconsistent this is with the scrip- 
ture view of the subject has been already 
shown ; and how dreadfully ruinous to 
the soul can be better imagined than de- 
scribed. Satan himself is represented by 
our great poet as having relented when 
he surveyed the myriads whom he had 
led to revolt ; and who, for his sake, had 
forfeited heaven : but a feeling of pride 
soon stifled the tender emotion. And is 
Mr. Campbell's heart too hard to relent 
as he takes a vieAv of the ravages which 
his system has effected, and of the num- 
bers whom he has led into ruinous error. 
Hundreds already, under the influence of 
these dreadful delusions, have gone to the 
retributions of eternity: and is Mr. C, 
not yet satisfied ? He has admitted that 
he is a stranger to the regenerating and 
saving operations of the Holy Spirit, 
which are the foundation of saving faith 
and of all holy exercises ; for he denies 
and ridicules this doctrine. And thus 
with profane hands will he still tamper 
with diseased and dying souls, and tell 
them that they need no physician ? Sure- 
ly the ruin which he has already effected 
ought to satisfy him ; and the paltry pride 
of being at the head of a party ought to 
cease to influence him any longer. Hap- 
py, indeed, would it be for his own soul, 
and for the souls of his deluded followers, 
if he, recognizing his depravity by nature, 
would seek, as an humble penitent, that 
saving influence which he has despised 
and ridiculed, and without which no sin- 
ner can be born again. 

But to return to the consideration of 
saving faith. In addition to what has 
been remarked on the subject, I observe 

1. That it regards God, as revealed 
in Christ Jesus, as its great object. 

" He that believeth on him that sent 
me, hath everlasting life," says Christ. 
John 5: 24. " Who by him (Christ) do 
believe in God," says Peter, "that raised 
him up from the dead and gave him glo- 
ry, that your faith and hope might be in 
God." 1 Pet. 1 : 21. Compare also 
John 8: 56. "Your father Abraham re- 
joiced to see my day; he saw it and was 
glad," with the following : "Abraham be- 
lieved God, and it was counted to him 
for righteousness," Gen. 15: 6, and re- 
peated in Rom. 4: 3. Gal. 3: 6. Jas. 2: 
23. For a further exhibition of faith as 
it regards God, as its object, see'Heb. 11: 



48 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



6. 2 Chr. 2: 20. Acts 16: 24. Mark 11: 
27, (fee. I remark, 

2. That it respects Christ as its object, 
and especially as the Son of God and Sa- 
viour of the world. 

Thus Christ says, " Ye believe in God, 
believe also in me," John 14: 1. " If ye 
believe not that I am he, ye shall die in 
your sins," John 8: 24. John the Bap- 
tist says, " He that believeth on the Son 
hath everlasting life." John 3: 36. See 
also Rom. 4: 5. "He that believeth on 
the Son, hath life." John 6: 40. See 
also John 3: 18, and 1 John 2: 23. It 
respects Christ also as our Teacher, John 
12: 48, and 6: 63. 1 Cor. 4: 15. Also 
as our Priest, Rom. 3 : 25. John 6 : 55. 
Rom. 6; 3. Hence, no one who rejects 
his atoning sacrifice can have true and 
saving faith; and of course cannot be jus- 
tified nor please God. Heb. 11: 6. It 
also respects him as our King. "No 
man can say that Jesus is Lord but by 
the Holy Ghost," 1 Cor. 12: 3. See 
also Acts 16: 31 ; and 7: 59, 60 ; and 2 
Pet. 2: 1. 

3. Saving faith is also clearly declar- 
ed to have its seat not in the understand- 
ing only hut also in the heart. 

" With the heart man believeth unto 
righteousness," or unto justification, si^ 
Bvr,a(,oavvrjv. Rom. 10: 10. For being 
renewed by the Spirit of God, the heart 
unites with the intellect; as it did not 
previously. Thus too, Philip addressed 
tlie Eunich, in answer to his question, 
"What doth hinder me to be baptized?" 
by saying, " If thou believest with all 
thine heart thou mayst." Acts 8: 36, 37. 
Such is a brief view of the scripture doc- 
trine of faith.* 

We have hitherto desired to follow 
what appeared to us to be Mr. C.'s order 
in his Theological System ; but we shall 
here again depart from it, to follow the 
proper connexion of scripture doctrine. 

* The point last named is peculiarly odious to Mr. 
Campbell. In one of his scurrilous caricatures of the 
evangelical ministry of this country, he says : " These 
talk much about the heart ; and on their theory, if a 
mail's heart was extracted, all his religion would be ex- 
tracted with it.'''' Christ. Rest. 303. The daring impi- 
ety of this assertion maybe seen by consulting the fol- 
lowing passages: Deut.5: 29. Ps. 13: 5. and 19: 8. and 
34: 18. and 40: 8. and 57: 7. and 73: 26. and 119: 32. 
and Prov. 14 : 14. and 16:1. and Jer. 24 : 7. Rzek. 18 : 31 . 
2 Chr. 15: 12. and 22: 9. and Prov. 3: 5. Matt. 11: 29. 
Rom. 2 : 29. and 6 : 17. &c. It is thus that Mr. C. ridi- 
cules the plain declarations of God's word. 



Justification should be viewed in connex- 
ion with faith. Hence we shall omit any 
specific consideration of the doctrine of 
conversion (see above, chap. II. sec. 3.) 
until we shall have considered the doc- 
trine of Justification. Mr. Campbell, 
and his Mormon, Puseyite, and Popish 
brethren, endeavor to make as wide a 
severance between Faith and Justification 
as possible. So also do the Unitarians : 
and the reason, in all these cases, is per- 
fectly obvious. If the glorious doctrine 
of Justification by faith, be true, their 
theories are delusive dreams — or, (chang- 
ing the figure,) mere opiates of conscience, 
which may lull it into security, but which 
must lead to the rejection of the only 
ground of salvation, the righteousness of 
Christ, 

SECTION ni. 

The Scriptural doctrine of Justification^ 
or the grounds briefly stated upon 
which a sinner obtains remission of 
sin, and is treated by God as righteous. 

The views which Mr. Campbell and 
his sect entertain upon this subject, are 
largely given by us in Chapter II., Sec. 4. 
We shall not here pause to prove them 
erroneous ; but shall consider and refute 
them, (as these are the more distinguish- 
ing doctrines of the system,) in connexion 
with their vieAvs of conversion and re- 
generation, in a chapter by themselves ; 
even as we have already considered their 
proof texts in Chap. III. But in the 
remaining part of this chapter we shall 
aim to give the Bible view of these doc- 
trines, in contradistinction from the views 
of Mr. C. 

1. Justification is a forensic term, and 
denotes simply a change in a man's state 
in relation to law. It is declaring that a 
person is righteous, and not making him 
so, either by any change of heart or other- 
wise; for it is simply opposed to con- 
demnation. The doctrine is excellently 
defined to be, "An act of God's free 
grace, by which he pardoneth ail our 
sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his 
sight only for the righteousness of Christ 
imputed to us, and received by faith 
alone." It is not simply remission of 
sin. Although in the economy of re- 
demption it is true that pardon necessarily 
supposes, and infers justification, and 



AND REFUTED. 



40 



vice versa ; but the two are not, strictly 
speaking, the same. 

Justification was early confounded with 
sanctilication. But they are two distinct 
things. Sanctification is the work of the 
Spirit of God, begun at regeneration and 
carried on through life; but justification 
is the act of God's free grace by which 
he pardons the sinner, and receives him 
into favor. Justification is at once com- 
plete and perfect: sanctification is a pro- 
gressive w^ork, and is not complete in the 
present life. 

2. Justification is hy faith alone^ for it 
is not the holy, but the ungodly who are 
justified. Rom. 4: 3, 8. Gal. 2: 17. Man 
is, therefore, not justified as already sanc- 
tified, or as reconciled to God, or adopted ; 
but as a wretched, helpless, hell-deserv- 
ing, and polluted sinner. As such his 
case is presented to the throne of God by 
our great Advocate, and as such, for the 
sake of the righteousness of this great] Ad- 
vocate, is he pardoned, and received into 
favor. He is, therefore, ungodly and ut- 
terly destitute of any righteousness of his 
own until he is justified ; though of course 
he does not continue ungodly; for with 
justification sanctification begins. 

Hence, though the sinner is justified 
hy faith alone^ it is not by faith as the 
meritorious ground^ but simply as 'the 
instrument of justification. Not that God 
justifies us because he regards us as mer- 
itorious or holy on account of our faith, 
(for this would plainly reverse the doc- 
trine of the apostle,) but we, through 
faith, receive the favor and forgiveness of 
God. Faith is, therefore, merely the 
hand stretched forth to receive the mercy 
of which we are in perishing need. 

The great problem, How can God he 
just and yet justify the ungodly? can 
never be solved by a Papist, a Puseyite, 
or a Campbellite, in consistency with 
their avowed sentiments. God had said, 
" The soul that sinneth, it shall die. In 
the day ye eat thereof ye shall surely 
die." But these errorists represent God 
as retracting this statem^ent; or as justi- 
fying individuals whom they assert are 
not ungodly. They represent the sinner 
as in some way (by his own work or 
desert) fitted to receive this blessing, and 
as virtually not ungodly when he does 
receive it. And thus justification, in- 
stead of being a free gift, is only the 



payment of a debt ; and all Paul's lan- 
guage respecting the justification of the 
ungodly is rendered wholly unmeaning ; 
or the doctrine is reversed, and rendered 
no better than the Jewish doctrine which 
Paul was opposing. And thus the sin- 
ner, instead of coming at once to the 
Saviour for forgiveness, as a ruined, per- 
ishing and helpless soul, is encouraged 
to wait until he is better. And in effect 
at least, the necessity for the Saviour's 
suflferings and death is entirely done 
away. Such may be the doctrine of 
Rome, but it is not the doctrine of Paul. 

It will be observed then, that before a 
sinner can be justified, the law which 
he has transgressed must be fulfilled. 
But no one, after having violated the law 
of God, can ever perfectly fulfil it by any 
thing he can either do or sufier. For 
the law requires of him the entire con- 
secration of all his powers to the service 
of God, every hour and moment of his 
existence. Matt. 22: 37. More than 
this he, of course, caimot perform. If, 
then, he has violated this law, say yes- 
terday, he clearly can never be justified 
by his own obedience to it; for at no 
time thereafter can he do more than the 
law at that same time requires of him. 
Hence, no sinner can ever be justified 
by his own obedience to the law of God. 
Gal. 3 : 10. And hence Paul concludes 
that " by the deeds of law no flesh shall 
be justified in his sight." Rom. 3. 20. 

Now Jesus Christ has become the Sa- 
viour of men by satisfying the law's 
demands. He has magnified the law 
and made it honorable. He is the only 
Saviour^ (Acts 4: 11, 12,) and has pur- 
chased salvation for us by thus satisfying 
the claims of the law. Rom. 8 : 3, 4, 
34. The law originally could have had 
no claims upon him, for he was not "a 
servant," and consequently not under law. 
But for our sake he took upon him the 
form of a servant, and was made in the 
likeness of men. Phil. 2': 6, 8. Con- 
sequently for our sakes he fulfilled that 
law which could have had no claims 
against him only as he became the surety 
of those who were under it. And hav- 
ing thus procured salvation not for him- 
self but for others, he is every where in 
the Bible presented as the Author of 
Salvation and eternal life. Heb. 2: 9 
land 5: 9, and 12: 2. Acts 3: 15. Is. 53. 



50 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED 



Hence, therefore, as he became our 
substitute, and occupied our place in law, 
it is plain, that before God can pronounce 
us just, there must be somehow or other 
a vital union between us and Christ, for 
otherwise, if we are not in law regarded 
as one, the law will clearly still have 
claims against us. Now this union is 
not constituted merely by Christ's be- 
coming a propitiation for the sins of man, 
for then all men would be saved, whether 
they acknowledged Christ or not. But 
it must be a voluntary union on our 
part; (for God recognizes us as rational 
and accountable agents;) and hence man 
is represented as at full liberty either to 
accept or to reject the Saviour. 

The great question then, is, How may 
this mystical union or relationship be- 
tween Christ and apostate man be consti- 
tuted? — for that it does truly and prop- 
erly exist between Christ and those who 
are saved by him no one can doubt who 
believes the Bible. " / am the vine, ye 
are the branches : he that abideth in me, 
and I in him, the same bringeth forth 
much fruit : for separated from (Xag/f) me 
ye can do nothing." Jno. 15: 5. See 
also 1 Cor. 12 : 27. Eph. 5 : 30. Com- 
pare also Acts 9: 4, 5, and Matt. 25 : 35 
— 45. And that this union with Christ 
is the foundation of that right or privilege 
which his people have to the enjoyment 
of the blessings procured by him is equal- 
ly clear. " He that hath the Son, hath 
life; and he that hath not the Son, hath 
not life." 1 John 5: 12. See also 1 
Cor. 1: 30. Jno. 3: 36. Hence our 
being in him is said to be the foundation 
of our acceptance with God. Eph. 1: 6. 

The question then returns, How may 
this union between the sinner and Christ 
be constituted ? Can it be constituted by 
the merit of works of any kind, be they 
penance, immersion, or any thing else ? 
No, assuredly it cannot. For this pre- 
posterous and pernicious notion would 
clearly represent our blessed Saviour as 
first purchasing salvation, and then sell- 
ing it to us ; or, which is in effect the 
same thing, granting it to us as the pay- 
ment of a debt. And this is contrary to 
the whole Bible which represents salva- 
tion as a gift. Rom. 5 : 17, 21, and 6 : 
23, &c. 

The same remarks apply equally 
against the doctrine that justification is 



granted to us in consideration of our hav- 
ing previously forsaken sin, and become 
morally fit for, or deserving of this bles- 
sing, by some act, or series of acts of 
ours. Or its being granted to us as a re- 
ward for previous holiness, or repentance, 
&;c. For the Apostle expressly affirms, 
that the sinner is ungodly, and a child of 
hell till God justifies him. 

In no conceivable way, therefore, can 
we procure justification, or, in other 
words, become united to Christ, by the 
merit of any mere works of ours. And 
this further appears from the considera- 
tion that until we are justified and rege- 
nerated, the heart is at enmity with God, 
and cannot be in subjection to him. Rom. 
8: 7. 1 Cor. 2: 14. How then can 
the selfish actings of an open and direct 
enemy be regarded by God, as sufficient- 
ly meritorious to entitle him to a high re- 
ward, and to be taken into the number of 
his friends ? From this whole procedure, 
therefore, the merit of the sinner in any, 
and in every form, must be wholly and 
eternally excluded. 

A legal union, therefore, between 
Christ and true believers, so that God 
may, in some respects, accept him for 
them, cannot be thus constituted. But, 
though his merit is thus wholly exclu- 
ded, the sinner is nevertheless, constant- 
ly in the Bible, represented as using his 
own moral agency in becoming united to 
Christ. He must be voluntary or active 
therein.* There must be some act, by 
which he voluntarily closes with Christ, 
and becomes united with him by accept- 
ing of his overtures of mercy. This 
act he puts forth, under the regenerating 
influences of the Holy Spirit; and this 
act, the Bible declares to be faith. Thus 
he '■'■ believes'^ \he promise, '•'• accepts^"* of 
the off'er of mercy, " comes^"* to Christ, 
and is received into favor, and becomes 
in law one with him. Before he puts 
forth this act, he was separated and ali- 
enated from Christ ; by this act he unites 
with him, and ceases to be an alien ; he 
becomes the friend of God, and a fellow- 
citizen of the saints, and of the house- 
hold of God. Eph. 2: 13—22. See al- 
so the full declaration of this truth in 
Jno. 6: 35—40, and 5: 38 — 40,43,44. 
See also Ch. 1 : 11, 12. Faith, there- 

* See Edwards on Justification. 



AND REFUTED 



61 



fore, and faith only, is that by which the 
sinner is "brought near" and united to 
Christ, and receives justification.* 

Other things, it is true, may be in them- 
selves no less excellent than faith. But 
it will be remembered that the sinner is 
not justified on account of any moral 
excellency that there is in faith, in itself 
considered ; but simply that it is the na- 
ture of faith to close with, or accept of 
Christ as Mediator; and this is not the 
nature of any other virtue or grace, ex- 
cept so far as it may itself enter into the 
constitution, or belong to the nature of 
justifying faith, God bestows the grace 
and salvation of Christ upon the soul, 
only out of a regard to the natural agree- 
ment or fitness that exists between such 
a qualification of the soul and such an 
union with Christ. And as it is the 
natural property of faith to do this, so 
there must be, on our part, an active 
uniting of the soul to Christ, before the 
Great Law-giver will recognize us as 
one in law with him. And his bestow- 
ing it for this reason, is surely very dif- 
ferent from bestowing it on account of 
the great excellency, or moral fitness of 
faith as a virtue. Hence justification 
by works is utterly and forever excluded ; 
and justification by the free grace of God 
established. He can "be just, and yet 
the justifier of him who believeth in 
Jesus." Rom. 3 : 26. 

Justification is therefore by faith alone. 
Works, or previous moral fitness can, in 
no sense of the word, be brought into the 
account, howsoever that moral fitness may 
be supposed to be acquired by the sinner. 

* The remarks of Dr. Dick in elucidation of this 
point are truly excellent : " It was the will of God," 
says he " that we should not be immediately justified, 
on the ground of the obedience and death of his Son 
In our room, but that some act of our minds should pre- 
cede the application of his merits to us. In a case of 
Buretyship, the three following things are necessary ; 
first, that the surety be willing to engage : secondly, 
that the person to . whom the debt or service is owing, 
be willing to accept of him instead of the principal ; 
and thirdly, that the person for whom he becomes 
bound, consent that he should act for him. God was 
willing to accept of Christ as the substitute of sinners ; 
Christ was willing to come under our obligations ; and 
all that was farther necessary, was, that we should 
consent to his undertaking them. Our consent, indeed, 
was not necessary to his entering upon his office, nor 
was it possible that it could be given, as he assumed it 
before we existed ; but it was necessary to our partici- 
pation of the benefits of his suretyship. This consent 
is given by faith, which is our cordial approbation of 
his substitution and vicarious rjghteoiisness." Dick's 
Theology, Vol. II. p. 209. 



The moment that justification is supposed 
to be derived from the works of the law, 
it follows that it is no longer from grace ; 
and " Christ has died in vain." Nor is 
the supposition any more admissible, 
that it is from faith and works united, — 
for the supposed works are either merit- 
orious, or they are not. If they are not, 
it is folly to speak of them in any sense 
as a ground of justification; and if they 
are meritorious, then just in proportion 
as they are so, does justification cease to 
be of grace. And any supposition in- 
ferring this, is clearly contrary to the 
truth of God which represents it as 
wholly of God's free grace, and as re- 
ceived by faith alone. Rom. 4: 16, and 
5: 1,2, and 3: 20,22,24. 

This doctrine entirely excludes boast- 
ing; and clearly attributes the entire 
glory of our salvation to God's free grace. 
See Rom. 3: 27. If the needy beggar 
whom you may have relieved, did, in 
any sense of the word, merit the boon 
you bestowed upon him, then, there is 
room for his boasting*. But if it were a 
free gift, and totally undeserved by him, 
all ground for boasting would be entirely 
taken away. For he would be insane 
indeed, who should suppose that he mer- 
ited what was given him, merely by 
reaching forth his hand to receive it. 
Rom, 4: 4, 5. 

3, It is in this sense therefore, that the 
righteousness of Christ becomes ours. 
By this faith we are united to him, and 
become in law one with him; and the 
law can have no claim against us, for 
"we are not under the law but under 
grace," Rom. 7: 4, 6. Gal, 3: 11. Rom. 
6: 14 and 8: 17. For the sake of what 
Christ has done, the believer is regarded 
and treated as though he had never sin- 
ned; and he receives the Spirit of Adop- 
tion, whereby he cries Abba, Father. 
Rom. 8: 16, 17. There is no literal trans- 
fer of moral character or of moral acts, or 
of righteousness; but the righteousness 
of Christ our Mediator and substitute is 
simply set over to the account of the be- 
liever; and is thus imputed to him. He 
is not really righteous, but is merely ac- 
counted so, and treated as righteous. The 
confounding of this distinction by the An- 
tinomians led them into the idea of a trans- 
fer of moral character. But to be really 
and truly rig-hteous, is a very different 



52 



CAMPBELEISM EXAMINED, 



thing from being in law reckoned or ac- 
counted so, that iSj to be so by imputation ; 
and this distinction ought to be carefully 
observed in treating upon this subject. 
The Papists, therefore, and Puseyites, and 
Campbellites may spare their silly cari- 
catures of this glorious doctrine — -for it 
infers no such thing as a transfer of 
moral acts or character. The law does 
not suppose that the believer himself has 
performed the obedience which is set over 
to his account ; but it merely accepts the 
obedience performed by Christ, as a full 
equivalent for what was required of the 
believer himself " Justitia Christi fide 
apprehensa nobis imputetur seu nostra 
esse censeatur" as the old Reformers sajr. 
In the very brief delineation of this 
most glorious doctrine of the Gospel, 
which we have here presented, we have 
purposely avoided the discussion of a 
number of questions commonly consid- 
ered in connexion with it, but which 
need not necessarily be discussed in order 
to a full presentation of the doctrine. I 
believe that the view here given, is sub- 
stantially the view of all evangelical 
denominations; and however they may 
vary in defining the precise import of the 
terms obedience of Christ, imputation^ 
&c., they all unanimously agree in 
holding that justification is by faith 
alone; and in utterly rejecting the merit 
of works. " We are all agreed^^ as 
Howe remarks, "that a sinner, an apos- 
tate, lapsed creature, can never be saved 
and brought to a blessed state, but he 
must be justified, and he must be sancti- 
fied. He must be justified, to make his 
state safe ; he must be sanctified, to make 
the temper of his spirit good, capable of 
communing with God in this world, and 
of final eternal blessedness with him in 
the other. We are agreed that such 
justification and such sanctification are 
both the effects of most absolutely free 
and sovereign grace ; that none could be 
ever justified, but by freest grace; that 
none can be ever sanctified but by freest 
grace; most absolutely and most sove- 
reignly free. We are agreed^ that the 
highest perfection of sanctification that 
can ever possibly be attained unto, sig- 
nifies nothing at all to deserve, to procure 
by merit our justification. We are 
agreed that both, as they are from the 
most free and sovereign grace, so do 



come through the mediation of Jesus 
Christ, the alone mediator between God 
and man; that the righteousness is en- 
tirely and only Christ's, by which we 
are justified ; that the Spirit is most en- 
tirely and only Christ's, by which we 
are sanctified ; according to that in 1 Cor. 
6 : 9 — 1 1. Such as are mentioned there 
were before, the grossest and vilest of 
sinners, fornicators, adulterers, idolaters, 
&c. 'And such,' (saith the apostle,) 
' were some of you ; but ye are washed, 
but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified 
in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by 
the spirit of our God.' We are agreed, 
that whosoever does sincerely, evangel- 
ically believe in God through Christ, 
receives Christ, is united with him or is 
in him," «fec.* On these points we are 
agreed^ and hence we are agreed to 
oppose and explode the soul-ruining de- 
lusions of Campbellism, Popery, Mor- 
monism, or any other, whose aun is to 
subvert these fundamental doctrines of 
the Gospel system. 

However, ahhotigh we shall not there- 
fore here discuss points on which we 
may differ, and still entertain the doctrine 
of justification by faith, in all its beauty 
and loveliness, I would, before passing on 
to the next topic, briefly advert to one or 
two questions which are sometimes sug- 
gested in considering this subject. 

1. " How can justification be at once 
complete, when forgiveness must be in- 
complete : because it would be absurd, 
says the querist, to assert that sins are 
forgiven before they are committed. 
Man, therefore, cannot be perfectly justi- 
fied at once, because he commits sin after 
he is justified. And sin cannot be for- 
given before it is committed." 

To this, I reply (in the language of 
Dick, Theol. Vol. II. p. 188.) "that 
there is no more ground for the charge 
of absurdity in this case, than in that of 
our Saviour, to whom all the sins of his^ 
people, past, present, and to come, were 
at once imputed ; for 'the Lord laid upon 
him the iniquity of us all ; ' and who, 
consequently, made satisfaction for mil- 
lions of sins, which had not yet been 
committed. There is no difficulty in the 
pardon, which does not occur in the ex- 
piation of future sins." 

* Carnality of religioufl contention— Works, p. 465, 



AND REFUTED. 



53 



2. " But does not James say that we are 
justified by works 1 How then can jus- 
tification be by faith alone ? " See Jas. 2. 

I answer, that James is here opposing 
the Antinomians of his time ; and in do- 
ing so makes a clear distinction between 
a dead, unproductive faith ; and a faith 
that is living and productive. The one 
he speaks of as "being alone," or by it- 
self, and says that demons possess it, 
V. 20, and asks "can this faith iiTiKSt? 
save ?" V. 14, and 26. He then denies 
that this was the faith by which Abra- 
ham and Rahab were justified, for their 
faith was productive of works. Such a 
faith he shows can only be exhibited by 
works, v. 18. 

In confirmation of this it may be re- 
marked that in verses 20 — 26, (in which 
the whole alleged difficulty lies,) James 
employs "wor^s" (v. 21, 24,) as the an- 
tithesis of ^^ faith only" and ^^ faith with- 
out works,'' (v. 20, 24, 26,) this will not 
be questioned by any one. And also, it 
will not be doubted that he employs the 
phrase, " faith wrought with his works," 
(v. 22,) as antithetical of "faith being 
alone" or unproductive ; and also as ex- 
egetical of "works" in v. 21, 24, for it 
is by these terms that he distinguishes 
between the two kinds of faith of which 
he is speaking, viz : a productive faith, 
and one that is unproductive. These 
things being so, the conclusion follows 
irresistibly, that as " works" in v. 21, 24, 
is used as the antithesis of " a faith that 
is alone," or " dead," or " without works," 
so by this term, he means simply " a 
faith which is alive, and productive of 
works; and by this, adds he, Abraham, 
&c. were justified. 

This is rendered still more clear by 
the example adduced by James in illus- 
tration thereof, v, 23 : " And the scripture 
was (thereby) fulfilled which saith, Abra- 
ham believed God, and it was imputed to 
him for righteousness." Now this ex- 
ample clearly speaks of Abraham's hav- 
ing his faith imputed to him for right- 
eousness. And yet James adduces it as 
an example pertinent to the illustration 
of what he has been saying of justifica- 
tion by works. And therefore, by works, 
he means a faith which produces works, 
a productive faith; the antithesis of a 
"faith without works." By a faith thus 
productive was Abraham justified, (and 



this is what Paul asserts,) and all those 
spoken of, in Heb. 11.* 

From this subject, the reader will per 
ceive how utterly false is Mr. C.'s notion 
that saving faith is a mere belief of his- 
torical facts,— or a belief that Christ is 
the Messiah. For demons, are by James 
represented, as possessing this faith, and 
it is asserted to be the faith of the " vain 
man',' or rather the hypocritical, as the 
word here means, f Nor can we suffi- 
ciently wonder at a man of Mr. C.'s ex- 
ceedingly moderate attainments in litera- 
ture, coolly setting out to prostrate the 
great cardinal doctrine of the refor- 
mation. 

3. "But," says the Papists and kin- 
dred errorists, " by such a view of the doc- 
trine of justification, loorks have no place 
in the Christian system, and are rendered 
wholly unnecessary." 

Such is, substantially, the objection 
which the Jews urged against the doc- 
trine as advanced by Paul : which is a 
pretty fair proof that the doctrine above 
stated, and that advanced by Paul are 
one and the same. But it is not true 
that works are unnecessary. They are 
necessary, as we have seen from James, 
as the appropriate fruits of faith, — and 
they are the means which God has ap- 
pointed for the exhibition of true faith. — 
They serve 

1 . To express our obedience to God's 
will. See 1 Thess. 5: 16-18, and 
Ps.119: 4, 5. 

2. By them, the believer seeks to let 
his light shine to the honor and glory of 
God. Matt. 5: 16. John 15: 8. 1 
Pet. 2: 9. 

* This criticism could be further establish- 
ed by a reference to the original, but I deem 
it unnecessary. It may not be amiss, howev- 
er, to quote the remarks of the profound Glas- 
stus on V. 21, 22: '"'• ^^hraham pater ille no ster^ 
nonne ex operibus tJ^ix-AiceBn justificaius est hoc 
est, decleratus et compertus est, quod fuerit 
justificatus. Hoc opus (Gen. 22: 12,) non 
fuit justificationis Abrahae causa, sed testimo- 
nium et declaratio, sic v. 24, 25." " Ex operi- 
bus fides iTfeXscutBrj perfecta fuit, hoc est, mani- 
festum factum fuit, quod esset perfecta eeu 
vera et sincera. — Quia de causa judicamus ex 
effeetis." See his remarks on this subject in 
Philo.Sac.Lib.III.Tract III. Can. XV. p. 788. 

t AvSga^To? Kfivof. In his first editions of his 
Testament, Mr. Campbellrendered this phrase 
"/aZse man:" but for obvious reasons he has 
changed it ia his later editions to '■'■vain 
man" 



54 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



3. They serve also as evidence of our 
love to God, and thus furnish ground for 
the believer's comfort amid the trials of 
life. 1 Tim. 4: 8. 2 Kings 20: 4. 

4. By means of them we seek also the 
good of others, and thus also glorify God. 
Tit. 3: 8. Matt. 5: 16. Ps. 16: 2, 3. and 

1 Pet. 3: 1. 

Hence it is that the people of God ev- 
er delight in the performance of duties. 
They love God, and desire to glorify him, 
and to do good to men : and these things 
they can thiis accomplish. See Ps. 119: 

14, 16,21, 47, 117, &c. 

5. Works also, so to speak, grow out 
of the very relation of the believer to 
Christ; who is his -wisdom and sanctifi- 
cation^ 1 Cor. 1: 30; his example in ho- 
liness, 1 Pet. 1: 15, 16; in love, Eph. 5: 
1,2; in forgiving others, Eph. 4: 32. Col. 
3: 12, 13; in patience and sufferings, 
Heb. 12: 3. 1 Pet. 2: 21 ; in meekness 
and humility. Matt. 11: 29. Jno. 13: 14, 

15. Phil. 2: 5; our consolation in suffer- 
ings, 2 Cor. 1: 5; our joy^ Rom. 5: 11 ; 
He upholds us in temptation, Heb. 2: 18. 

2 Cor. 12: 9; is our master and Lord, 
Matt. 23: 8, 10. John 13: 13. Rom. 14: 
9 ; and our Head, Eph. 4: 15; and our all 
in all. Col. 3: 11. 

6. Good works are also the evidence 
to be exhibited at the judgment day, of 
possessing this faith. Matt. 25: 35, &c. 
Faith, as the exercise of the mind and 
heart, can be known only to God and 
ourselves; and hence men at judgment 
will be judged according to the evidences 
which they have given of possessing an 
interest in Christ. And thus the whole 
universe of holy beings will be enabled 
to appreciate and approve the righteous 
sentence of God in relation to mankind. 

SECTION IV. 

Conversion. 

Mr. Campbell makes regeneration and 
conversion the same thing : and the ludi- 
crous caricature which his system pre- 
sents of these two great doctrines, is cal- 
culated to make any impression upon the 
mind rather than a serious one. But his 
views we shall more fully explode here- 
after. And in here treating upon these 
doctrines, we shall not labor to present 
and demonstrate any mere speculative 
theory, but shall give a plain practical 



view of them as they are stated in the 
Gospel. 

Regeneration differs from conversion, 
and is a spiritual change wrought in man 
by which the feelings, desires, views, and 
aspirations of the soul are, so to speak, 
transformed; and this is all referred to 
the mighty operation of the Spirit of God. 
Conversion is the act of the creature in 
turning to God. Thus in Ezek. 36: 27, 
God's putting his Spirit into our heart is 
clearly distinguished from our walking 
in his ways ; and it is mentioned express- 
ly as the cause of our doing so. Char- 
nock, referring to this distinction, remarks: 
" The first reviving us is wholly the act 
of God, without any concurrence of the 
creature ; but after we are revived we do 
actively and voluntarily live in his sight. 
Regeneration is the motion of God in the 
creature ; conversion is the motion of the 
creature to God, by virtue of that first 
principle : from this principle all the acts 
of believing, repenting, mortifying, quick- 
ening, do spring." Works, vol. H. Such 
is the Bible view of this matter : to which 
the view of Mr. C. is a perfect antithesis ; 
as will be seen by referring to Chap. XL 
Sect. Ill, above. "It is not faith," says 
he, " but an act resulting from faith that 
changes our condition." "This act is 
sometimes called immersion^ regeneration, 
conversion." 

It might be thought that as conversion 
is the effect of the operation of the Spirit 
of God in regeneration, it would be better 
to follow the regular order in treating 
upon these topics. This we should do, 
were we writing a theological system: 
but as it is, the reader will pardon us for 
following the order^ of the system which 
we are examining. We have already 
departed from this order, but shall adhere 
to it through the topics which yet remain 
to be examined. 

It is on the subject of Regeneration and 

* Perhaps I should say disorder. Mr. C. states the 
order of his system as follows : " Fact, Testimony, 
Faith, Repentance, Reformation, Bath of Regeneration, 
(i. c. Baptism,) New Birth, Renewing of the Holy Spir- 
it," &c. Christ. Rest. p. 260. This order in the great 
work of renovation, he maintains to be the true one ; 
and thus attributes the more difficult and more glorious 
part of this work to man, and the inferior to God — and 
represents the Holy Spirit as meekly condescending to 
continue the work which man had begun. 

Justification, and conversion, in this system, come 
under the head of Baptism. But the whole system is & 
perfect "continent of mud" — a rudis indigestaqut 
moles, quern dixere chao». 



AND REPUTED. 



55 



Conversion that Mr. C. advances his 
Unitarian sentiments respecting the ope- 
ration of the Spirit of God ; for that they 
are distinguishing sentiments of the Uni- 
tarian school, even he himself will not 
have the hardihood to deny. In fact, he 
carries his speculations on this subject 
even beyond those of the Polish Socini- 
ans, and Socinus himself, as will be 
abundantly proved should there be any 
occasion for it. And as the topic of con- 
version leads necessarily to the consider- 
ation of both divine and human agency in 
the work of man's renovation, I shall take 
occasion to offer here a few remarks on the 
subject as connected with the Unitarian 
hypothesis which Mr. C. has adopted. 

Mr. C.'s theory of the spirit's influen- 
ces in renewing the soul of man has been 
adverted to already. But as the subject 
is of so much importance, I must beg 
leave to refer to it here again. In his 
Dialogue on the Holy Spirit he says that 
" the spirit is promised and given to none, 
till they are united to the building of 
God, the church," i. e. immersed. See 
Christ. Rest. p. 374. He affirms also, 
" that a human spirit cannot be shaped, 
or disposed, or new created, or new mo- 
dified, by another spirit working upon 
it;" and that it "can only be moved, dis- 
posed, new created by truth apprehended 
and embraced;" and that whether the 
truth "be presented by God or Satan," 
or by whatever means, " it can operate 
only morally and by motive upon the 
soul," p. 378. He also seems to dis- 
pense with the agency of the Third Per- 
son of the Trinity altogether, except so 
far as his inditing the word in the first in- 
stance is concerned. See p. 274. 

So also in his Harbinger for 1840, p. 
542, he says the sinner "is not first re- 
generated, then justified, then sanctified, 
then adopted, then reconciled, then saved. 
The Bible nowhere 'presents this vieio of 
the matter.''^ And on p. 544, " Regener- 
ation before faith is as great a figment of 
human fancy as was ever dreamed." — 
And on p. 332, of Har. for 1839, he says, 
addressing a Baptist editor, "The Bap- 
tists have, till recently, advocated regen- 
eration by the Spirit alone. I am glad 
to find that you are ashamed of this sys- 
tem ; but you ought to be thankful to me 
for dissipating this phantom." And fol- 
lowing up the same speculations, a cor- 



respondent remarks on the same page, 
"If the spirit operates abstractedly, the 
man knows nothing of t^ne operation. — If 
this abstract operation of the spirit be not 
a species of witchcraft, by which the 
people are bewitched, and made to be- 
lieve that the clergy are the great power 
of God for salvation, I do not know what 
it is." Thus impiously is this sacred 
doctrine ridiculed by these men, who very 
properly, however, confess at the same 
time that they are utter strangers to its 
practical import. 

In the Harbinger for 1834, also, Mr. 
C. makes the following extracts from the 
Richmond Religious Herald of March 7: 
" We believe no sinner ever repented 
without the Spirit was first given him un- 
sought." "We believe that every sinner 
can repent." " The personal and effect- 
ual influences of the Spirit are bestowed 
on the elect unsought, which induced 
them to attend to the offers of mercy 
made in Christ, and to accept of them," 
&c. on which Mr. C. remarks as fol- 
lows : " We believe that every sinner 
can repent without the aid of the Spirit, 
and that no sinner ever did repent 
without the aid of the Spirit, and 
that this aid is always unsought by 
the sinner, and if sought by the sinner, 
never could be obtained. [This last 
clause is Mr. C.'s own inference.] This 
is in one sentence the Gospel of the He- 
rald, on the subject of the conversion of 
sinners. It requires a good deal of dex- 
terity in the art of religious legerdemain 
to unmystify this consolatory and practi- 
cal doctrine of repentance. With such 
wholesome doctrines the good Baptists 
of Virginia are now fed by their present 
shepherds." In his public discussions 
Mr. C. also ridicules the same doctrine of 
the Spirit's influence. In the account of 
his debate with Mr. C, Dr. Jennings 
states, " That the doctrine of the saving 
influence of the Spirit of God upon the 
minds of men, was, by him, not only de- 
nied, but held up to ridicule and con- 
tempt." Debate, p. 84. 

The theory of Mr. C. in brief, is, that 
the Holy Spirit can exert no power over 
the soul of man, except what is contain- 
ed in the written word. He says " when 
we think of the power of the Spirit of 
God exerted upon minds or human spir- 
its, it is impossible for us to imagine, that 



56 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 



that power can consist in any thing else 
but words or arguments. As the moral 
power of every man is in his arguments, 
so is the moral power of the Spirit of 
God in his arguments," Christ. Rest. p. 
349. " As the spirit of man puts forth 
all its moral power, in the words which 
it fills with its ideas; so the Spirit of 
God puts forth all its converting and 
sanctifying fower^ in the words which it 
fills with its ideas." " If the Spirit of 
God has spoken all its arguments ; or, if 
the Old and New Testament contain all 
the arguments which can be offered to 
reconcile man to God, and to purify them 
who are reconciled, then all the power 
of the Holy Spirit which can operate 
upon the human mind is spentV p. 350. 
" We plead that all the converting pow- 
er of the Holy Spirit is exhibited in the 
Divine record, p. 351." " All the moral 
power of God or man is exhibited in the 
truth which they propose." p. 362. " As- 
sistance to believe 1 This is a metaphy- 
sical dream." p. 364. " The Ethiopian 
Eunuch, like Lydia, had his heart open- 
ed, as we have now., by reading and ob- 
serving the ancient prophecies, and re- 
corded miracles of the Jewish scriptures." 
" There is no mention of the Holy Spirit 
in this case, save that it induced Philip to 
preach to the Eunuch, and took him 
hence when he had done." p. 367. " The 
Holy Spirit is not named in the whole 
narrative of Paul's conversion, till after 
Ananias visited him." p. 367. " Neither 
on any just principles of reason, nor from 
any declaration of scripture, can it be 
made either evident or probable, that the 
Spirit of God in producing faith any oth- 
er way operates upon the hearts of men., 
than through the recommendations once 
given by signs and wonders^ and all the 
variety of supernatural operations former- 
ly addressed to the senses of mankind, 
and now written down and stamped with 
the indubitable marks of Divinity, open 
and plain to every one desirous of know- 
ing the truth." p. 368. " The Holy 
Spirit made the literal body of Jesus by 
its influences ; and afterwards filled it.— 
But it was not until he was born again 
in the Jordan., that the Holy Spirit in the 
form of a dove, descended upon him." p. 
373. " Moral disposition cannot be pro- 
duced by a spirit operating upon a spir- 
it." p. 377. This, then, is the " Ancient 



Gospel" of Mr. C. ; and such is the ex- 
tent of the divine influence upon the soul in 
conversion and regeneration? Another 
writer, who has adopted Mr. C's views, thus 
expresses himself: " The Holy Spirit is 
not given to men to make them believe and 
obey the Gospel ; but rather because they 
have believed and obeyed the Gospel.'^ 
" The Holy Spirit, a Discourse." p. 30. 

The mere statement of these gross ca- 
ricatures of the Gospel, is sufficient, one 
would think, and that any labored refuta- 
tion of them would be a reflection upon 
a Bible reading community. Yet, a few 
remarks may be admissible ; and will be 
abundantly sufficient to expose their hide- 
ous deformity. Any one who will be at 
the pains to compare the views entertain- 
ed by Socinus on this subject, or, as more 
fully expanded by Crellius, the Cory- 
phseus of the Polish Socinians, (in the 
later part of Vol. IV. of the Fratres Po- 
lonias,) will perceive that, while Mr. C. 
has their very criticisms on a number of 
passages, he has in his revolting blasphe- 
my, left them far in the rear. I have 
just compared the discourse of Crellius, 
on this subject, with that of Mr. C, and 
I affirm this representation to be suscept- 
ible of the fullest demonstration. The 
doctrine originated with Pelagius and 
Ceelestius, as will be seen by a reference 
to Vossii Hist. Pelag. Lib. I. cap. 3, 4, 
and 5, and Lib. III. part I. and IL 
Mosheim in Eccles. Hist., Book I. Cent. 
V, chap. 5, has also given a brief sum- 
mary of their views, to which the reader 
is referred also, for a fuller statement than 
we can here give. They asserted that 
" the doctrine of the necessity of divine 
grace to enlighten the understanding and 
purify the heart, was prejudicial to the 
progress of holiness and virtue:" and 
that man " has no need of the internal 
succors of the Divine Spirit." To such 
men, and not to the word of God, has 
Mr. C. gone for this feature of his " An- 
cient Gospel ;" though in asserting it, he 
has gone so far that they, and even Soci 
nus himself, would have accused him of 
blasphemy. The extent to which his 
hatred of the doctrine of the Spirit's in- 
ternal operations has led him, will be 
more fully developed in our review of his 
New Testament. 

In treating upon Faith we asserted the 
Gospel view of this doctrine, to wit, that 



AND REFUTED. 



57 



the spirit operates ordinarily through the 
truth, but that in his operations he is not 
limited thereby; and that whatever in- 
strumentality or means the spirit may 
see proper to employ, he himself is the 
direct agent in producing faith, regener- 
ation and sanctification. 

We admit that we have no adequate 
idea of the method by which one spirit 
may operate upon another ; but have we 
any more adequate conception of the 
method by which the spirit of man acts 
upon his corporeal organization ? And 
no one who adopts Mr. C.'s unitarian 
hypothesis, will venture to deny that the 
human mind is so constituted as to admit 
of such operations.* Nor is it necessary, 
in maintaining this view, to suppose that 
the Holy Spirit ever communicates to 
man any other truths than those already 
revealed in his written word. He is also 
constantly represented as dicelliiig^ or 
abiding in the heart of the true believer, 
which of course infers an indwelling" 
there at times when the mind may not 
be thinking upon revealed truth. Nor 
is there any reference whatever, made to 
THE WRITTEN WORD in thcsc declarations. 
See Rom. 8: 11, 13, 15, and 5:5. 1 
Cor. 6: 11, 19. 2 Cor. 3: 3, 17. Gal. 5: 
22. But according to Mr. C.'s Socinian 
hypothesis, the Spirit can never abide in 
the heart or soul of man, save only when 
he is thinking upon the written word ; 
and consequently, an infidel may have 
the Spirit dwelling in him as fully as the 
true believer, merely by thinking upon 
the written word of the Spirit, " in which 
consists its whole moral power and in- 
fluence ;" " and it dwells in the written 
word as a man's spirit dwells in his wri- 
tings." Such are the doctrines taught by 
this advocate of the " Ancient Gospel." 

What gross work does this confound- 
ing of the Spirit with the written word, 
make of the whole representation of the 
New Testament. Take a single ex- 
ample : " The sword of the Spirit, which 
is the word of God." Eph. 6:17. And 
what are we to think of the discrimina- 
tion of a theologian who can thus con- 
found the sword with the agent who uses 
it ? Were an opponent of Mr. C. to 
commit such a blunder, he would never 

* See this subject excellently handled in a little trea- 
tise on the « Work of the Holy Spirit in Conversion," by 
J. H. Hinton. 

8 



cease ridiculing him.* The passages 
above referred to abundantly prove that 
the Spirit has direct access to the soul of 
man, and that by it he carries on the 
work of sanctification. 

" All the moral power of the Spirit is 
in the arguments contained in the written 
word ; as all the moral power of man is 
in what he speaks or writes," says Mr. 
C. But what an utter absence of thought 
is here ! Has Mr. C. never felt the 
power of an appeal from the tearful eye 
of an humble but mute suppliant for re- 
lief? an appeal, too, that may or may 
not be connected with the facts of the 
suppliant's history. What is the mean- 
ing of Zech. 12: 10: "/ will pour out 
my spirit upon the house of David, &-c., 
and they shall look upon me whom they 
have pierced, and they shall mourn for 
hi7n," &c. This refers to the future 
conversion of the Jews. But are they 
not, at least multitudes of them, already 
acquainted with the "facts" of the life 
and death of Christ. How false is it, 
then, that the written history of these 
"/<zc^s" and " testimony''' circumscribe 
the power of the Spirit? For here the 
great mourning and deep repentance of 
the Jews are attributed to the direct 
agency of the Spirit who is "poured out 
upon" their souls, and thus produces 
these effects. 

These considerations evince also, how 
subversive of true religion is Mr. C.'s 
assertion, that the Spirit does not begin 
the work of conversion. His distinct 
assertion and reassertion of this, will be 
seen in the foregoing extracts from his 
writings. There could not be a plainer 
contradiction of this notion than that fur- 
nished by Zech. 12: 10. And on this 
principle how can it be said that God 
" begins the good work" in the Chris- 
tian? Phil. 1:6. 1 Cor. 3: 5. And 
Paul also asserts that believers " begun 
in the Spirit." Gal. 3: 3. And then if 

* Hinton, referring to this same caricature of the 
Gospel, says : " To any who may have received such 
ideas, he would suggest the question, by what agency 
do they expect the resurrection of their bodies will be 
eflected? It is expressly asserted, (Rom. 8: 11,) that 
'he that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also 
quicken your mortal todies by his Spirit that dwelleth 
in you.'' If therefore, this Spirit be the word — it is the 
Bible which is to effect their resurrection. It is pre- 
sumed, that persons entertaining this notion, will be 
careful to give directions that a Bible should be enclosed 
in their coffins." Hinton on the Spirit, p. 19 



58 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



"the Holy Spirit is not given to make 
men believe, but because they have be- 
lieved and obeyed the Gospel," the gross 
absurdity follows, that the "agonizing to 
enter the strait gate," the " cutting off the 
right hand," the plucking out the right 
eye," &c. are the causes of the operations 
of the Spirit, and not the results. 

Then further, the ungodly, no matter 
how much of the truth they may have 
in their minds, are described as "sen- 
sual, not having the Spirit." Jude 19. 
And on Mr. C's Socinian hypothesis, 
what can be made of such passages as 
these : " No man can come to me, except 
the Father who hath sent me draw him." 
Jno. 6: 44. How will the Father draw 
him, if there can be exerted upon the 
soul no influence except what is embodied 
in the written word 1 In what way will 
he bring the truth to bear upon the 
mind? So also 1 Cor. 2: 14: "The 
natural man receiveth not the things of 
the Spirit of God; for they are foolish- 
ness unto him; neither can he know 
them, because they are spiritually dis- 
cerned." If this be so, how will these 
things ever cease to be foolishness to him, 
unless his heart be first changed by the 
Spirit ? that is, unless he be first regener- 
ated ? And it is distinctly stated, that 
while he is a "natural man," that is, not 
regenerated by the Spirit, he cannot even 
"know these things, because they are 
spiritually discerned." And yet Mr. C. 
ridicules the .idea of the Spirit's agency 
prior to faith. 

And what nonsense does Mr. C's the- 
ory also make of such passages as the 
following: " Our Gospel came unto you, 
not in word only, but in power, and in 
the Holy Ghost." I Thess. 1 : 5. " The 
epistles of Christ, written not with ink, 
but by the Spirit of the living God." 2 
Cor. 3:3. "Who then is Paul, and 
who is Apollos, but ministers by whom 
ye believed, even as the Lord gave to 
every man ? So then, neither is he that 
planteth any thing, neither he that water- 
eth ; but God that giveth the increased 
1 Cor. 3: 5, 7. But Mr. C. does not 
think that Paul and Apollos are nothing. 
For, as we have seen in Chap. II. above, 
he wrote his works "for those who are 
engaged in regenerating others^'' and in 
" introducing them into the kingdom." 

The same doctrine is declared in Ezek. 



36 : 26, 27, " A new heart will I give 
you, and a new spirit will I put with- 
in you, and cause you to walk in 
my statutes ; and ye shall keep my judg- 
ments and do them." Can anything be 
plainer ? And yet Mr. C. in the most 
indecent manner, perpetually ridicules 
the doctrine that the spirit's operations 
upon the heart are antecedent to the sin- 
ner's conversion and obedience. Thus, 
too, Peter speaks of " obeying the truth 
through (or by aia) the spirit, " I Pet. 1 : 
22. And in Acts 16: 14, speaking of 
Lydia, it is said, " lohose heart the Lord 
opened^ that she attended to the things 
which were spoken by Paul^ Here the op- 
ening of her heart by the Lord is stated as 
the cause of her attending to the words of 
Paul; and yet, says Mr. C, Man must 
first believe and repent before the spirit 
will assist him. Thus, too, is Christ 
said to " ^i-ye repentance," Acts 5: 31. 
and 11 : 16, 18, "even when we were 
dead in sins, (God) hath quickened us 
together with Christ," Eph. 2: 4, 5,. 
" For we are his workmanship, created 
i/i Christ Jesus unto good works,''^ Eph, 
2: 10. ''Believed through grace,'' Acts. 
18: 27. Can there be a more direct 
contradiction to any thing, than these 
texts furnish to this Unitarian hypothe- 
sis ? See also, Jer. 13: 23; 2 Cor. 4: 
4; Prov. 1:25; John 3: 19.; Matt. 
13: 15.; Ps. 110: 2. But to multiply 
remarks on this subject were needless. 
Every one must see how utterly false is 
Mr. C's. view of conversion, and of the 
Spirit's influence ; and we shall proceed 
to close our remarks on this branch of the 
argument, after we have noticed some of 
Mr. C's. objections. In adopting this 
theory, he has made thorough work ; for 
he has not only taken the principle itself, 
but also his arguments and criticisms, 
and even his objections from that school. 
He has, however, the ingratitude to deny 
it, even in the face of the most positive 
proofs to the contrary. 

1. It is said that as the human mind is 
susceptible of being operated on only by 
motive ; that, therefore, the truth either 
spoken or written, can alone be the me- 
dium through which any change is 
wrought therein. And that, therefore, 
the idea of any change wrought therein 
antecedent to faith, or by the spirit's 
agency, except so far as naked truth is 



AND REFUTED. 



59 



presented to it, is an absurd and perni- 
cious notion. 

Several things may be said in dispo- 
sing of this objection. And 1. We can- 
not but pause to contemplate with perfect 
astonishment, the advances which Mr. C. 
has made in his investigations. He has, 
as he says of himself, " a dash of satire 
in his constitution — a genius naturally 
inclined to irony, which he has often to 
deny;" *2. genius which has, as he says, 
(Mill. Har. for 1840, p. 544,) thoroughly 
examined "o-ZZ aTi^ig-wz^^/;" and has dis- 
covered that our blessed Redeemer ^^was 
horn againi'^ Christ Restored^ p. 373, 
and that it is a greater work for God to 
give to man's "mortal frame incorruptible 
and immortal vigor" than either to "cre- 
ate" or "redeem him," p. 276. How 
absurd, therefore, to attempt to limit the 
bounds of investigation for such a "^e- 
Tims?" He has not only gone over every 
thing terrene, but has extended his range 
so far 

" Beyond the visible, diurnal sphere," 

that he has grasped the whole subject of 
the nature and properties of spiritual ex- 
istence, (as the foregoing extracts show,) 
and comes to us with the information 
that "all the power of the Holy Spirit 
which can operate upon the human mind, 
is spent,''^ and that " all its converting and 
sanctifying power is in the written 
word." And further that spirit cannot 
operate upon, or influence spirit, ex- 
cept by arguments ;" "and that only by 
presenting such considerations to it, can 
it be moulded, disposed, &c. by another 
spirit." If these prodigious discoveries 
are not in advance of all the attainments 
of mental philosophers, I am greatly 
mistaken. I appeal, however, to the 
reader, whether it is possible to treat 
such preposterous pretensions with se- 
riousness. But 

2. I am not disposed to deny that the 
mind may be susceptible of being influ- 
enced only bi/ motive. Admitting it to be 
so, however, does Mr. C's. inference fol- 
low, that motive can be brought before the 
mind only in an oral or written form ? 
This inference does not follow, (as we shall 
see,) and how absurd, therefore, is his as- 
sertion that all the power which the Holy 
Spirit can exert in converting and sancti- 

* See Dr. Cleland's StricturesonCampbellism, p. 57. 



fying the soul, is spent ; and is contained 
in the written word ? The feelings pro- 
duced by contemplating the ashy pale- 
ness of approaching dissolution, are 
equally rational with those that are called 
forth by the torrent of impassioned elo- 
quence.* And so, too, the feelings in- 
spired by the contemplation of the sun 
and stars, and planetary system ; though 
" they have no speech nor language— 
their voice is not heard," are as intelligi- 
ble and rational as can be conveyed by 
words. And it is thus that God appeals 
to man in the book of his works, (in 
which there is no written language,) and 
evinces his eternal power and Godhead, 
Rom. 1: 20. 

Here then the spirit or soul of man is in- 
fluenced and moved^ without the interven- 
tion of oral or written language. And 
these simple illustrations may serve to 
show how wild is the assertion that mo- 
tives are embodied " only in the written 
word., which contains the whole of God^s 
sanctifying and converting power. ''^ For 
every one can see that if the soul may 
thus be moved and impressed without 
written language, then written language 
does not embody the whole of motive 
power ; and that it is folly to attempt to 
assign any limits to God's ability to com- 
municate moving and healthful, and sav- 
ing influences or impressions to the soul: 
and it is equal folly to assert that serious 
attention to the truth of God is induced 
only by the truth itself, and not by the 
suasion of the Spirit of God. Then 

3. The beautiful consistency of this 
objection of Mr. C. with the foregoing- 
extracts from his works must be apparent 
also to all. He says that all the sancti- 
fying influence of the Spirit of God, is 
in the word itself; and that it is all ex- 
pended therein ; and yet asserts that the 
Holy Spirit is not given until men have 
repented and obeyed, — until they have 
been baptized, and are regenerate. Now 
this must mean, in other terms, (if all the 
influence of the Spirit upon the soul is 
embodied in the written word.) that the 
written word is not given to the sinner 
until after he believes it and obeys it. — 
And this view is with Mr. C. more ra- 
tional than the doctrine that the Spirit 
regenerates the soul of the sinner when 

* Hinton on the Spirit, p. 61, 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED 



he believes, repents and turns to God. — 
Reader, what do you think of this ? 

4. The consistency of this view, also, 
with the foregoing passages of Scripture 
is no less apparent. Let the reader con- 
template in connexion therewith, Zech. 
12 : 10, where the pouring out of the 
Spirit is stated as the moving cause of the 
sinner's contemplation of Christ crucifi- 
ed, and of his consequent repentance and 
conversion : or Ezek. 36 : 26, 27, where 
the gift of a new heart is affirmed to be 
antecedent to obedience, and to be the 
producing cause of it, or Phil. 1:6. 1 
Cor. 3: 5— 7, &c. 

The doctrine which Mr. C. has treat- 
ed with so much ridicule and contempt 
is, therefore, so far from being impaired 
by this objection, that on the contrary, it 
is confirmed thereby. His attempt to re- 
fute it, or explain it away, and to ridicule 
it, and to assume a position that does not 
involve it, results only in his disgrace. 

The "Word of God" is "the sword" 
which " the Spirit ordinarily uses in con- 
verting, regenerating, and sanctifying the 
soul. He, by means of it, enlightens 
the eyes, and makes wise the simple. Ps. 
19 : 7, 8. We do not suppose that he 
does this by making the word undergo 
an alteration, or by making it the subject 
of some divine influence, (for it is the 
heart of the sinner alone that undergoes 
a change by this operation,) but that he 
operates through it, (and can operate 
without it in producing these effects,) in 
such a way that any sinner who will give 
himself up to the serious contemplation 
of the truths which it has revealed, will 
become the subject of its transforming 
power.* But here we are met with 
another objection. Mr. C. and Unitari- 
ans assert that 

2. If the influence of the Spirit is thus 
necessary to conversion, it is impossible 
that sinners should be commanded to re- 
pent and believe. 

But why do not all sinners repent who 
hear the Gospel? In answer to this 
question, both Mr. C. and the Unitarians 
will confess that it is because they are 
not inclined to do so. And so say all 
evangelical christians. But what is it 
that inclines the sinner to repent when 
he does repent? To this question, the 

* See note B. at the end. 



gentlemen whom we oppose will vouch- 
safe no answer. For they see that it is too 
preposterous even for them to assert, that 
he inclines himself., without any influ- 
ence ; and to say that accident inclines 
him, is equally absurd ; and to say that 
those who do repent are inclined so to do, 
under the arrangement of Divine Provi- 
dence, under which they have been so 
trained, and stationed with respect to cir- 
cumstances, that they are led to repent, 
or to contemplate the truth, while others, 
not so circumstanced, are not so led ; this 
would lead them into the very difficulty 
which they object to as presented in the 
doctrine they oppose. We say however, 
without hesitation, that the sinner is in- 
clined to repent by the Spirit, who con- 
stantly strives with men wherever God's 
truth is known. 

But if the reason why men do not re- 
pent and be converted is, they are not in- 
clined to do so, then, how absurd is the 
foregoing objection. Will these men ven- 
ture to assert that a man's inclination, 
and not his duty is the measure of the 
divine requirement ? 

These notions all originated with the 
old Pelagian scheme, which asserted the 
sufficiency of truth alone to regenerate 
and sanctify man. It proceeds upon the 
utter denial of human depravity, and the 
assumption that human nature is not in 
any sense of the word in a fallen condi- 
tion, but is as upright as when man was 
first created. Hence all that is needed to 
make him perfectly holy, is moral suasion 
alone. We cannot here enter into an ex- 
amination of this foolish idea ; but the 
reader may see it handled in inimitable 
style by Foster, in his Essays ; * to which 
we beg leave to refer. 

3. Another objection much insisted on 
by Mr. C. (as well as by some Baptists 
who profess even to repudiate his sys- 
tem,) is, that the Holy Spirit is never said 
to be given except in or <x^ Baptism. 

But what does Mr. C. mean by the 
Holy Spirit here ? Surely he does not 
mean miraculous gifts, for he will not 

* Essay III. Letter III, p. 154—157. Robert Hall re- 
ferring to this portion of the Essays^ in his review of 
them, remarks : «« We are delighted to find him treating 
with poignant ridicule those superficial pretenders who, 
without disavowing any dependence on divine agency, 
hope to reform the world, and to bring back a paradisi- 
acal state, by the mere force of moral instruction." 
Works II. p 241. 



AND REFUTED. 



61 



pretend that these are now bestowed up- 
on man. And yet what can he mean ? 
All the regenerating and sanctifying op- 
erations of the spirit, according to him, 
are embodied in the written word — and 
"the spirit never operates, and cannot 
operate except by the arguments therein 
recorded!" What, then, is meant by 
giving the Holy Spirit in or at Baptism ? 
The objection is perfectly ludicrous in the 
mouth of a Campbellite. 

But the assertion is untrue by whom- 
soever made. Under what influence was 
it that the three thousand at Pentecost 
exclaimed, "Men and brethren, what 
shall we do?" See Acts 2: 16 — 21. In 
respect to the disciples themselves, where 
do we read that they received the spirit 
in their Baptism? Mr. C. denies that 
they did then receive it, for he constantly 
affirms that the spirit was not given until 
the day of Pentecost.* By whose pow- 
er then did the twelve disciples and the 
seventy 'perform miracles before the death 
of Christ? Will Mr. C. join with the 
Pharisees, and say it was by the power 
of Beelzebub? Surely not. Does not 
our Saviour, speaking of the Holy Spirit, 
say to his disciples, " Ye know him, for 
he dwelleth in youP John 14: 17. See 
also John 20: 22, 23. And yet " he was 
not given until Pentecost ! ! " 



* Mr. C.'a doctrine is that in no sense was the Holy 
Spirit given to men until Pentecost, either to assist them 
to believe, or to convict, regenerate or sanctify them, or 
to enable them to perform miraculous works. " The 
Holy Spirit was not given until the day of Pentecost." 
Hence,!/ the Holy Spirit aided men to believe in Jesus 
Christ, it must have been subsequent to that date. Be- 
sides, it is conversion to Jesus Christ, and not to Moses, 
which interests us. Mention, then, any person of 
whom it is said, that the Holy Spirit enabled him to be- 
lieve. The descent of the Holy Spirit was to help them 
(the apostles) to prove, that what they spoke was true. 
In this way persons can be helped to believe, and this is 
the only way in which one can help another to believe. 
For this help we contend. But you spoke of an inter- 
nal operation upon the mind to produce faith. You 
spoke of a faith wrought in the heart. You might as 
well talk of light, or seeing wrought in the eye : of 
sound, or hearing wrought in the ear, &c. Christ. Rest. 
p. 365. And from these premises he goes on to prove 
that Paul, Lydia, &c. were converted without any in- 
fluences of the spirit. 

To avoid the difficulty in such passages as Mark 9 : 
24, Luke 17 : 5, &:c. he adopts the Socinian exposition, 
as even the above extract would show. 

But in respect to the Holy Spirit being » not given" 
in any way until Pentecost, let the reader please, in 
addition to the passages referred to in the text, consult 
the following, and he will be enabled to judge of the 
attention with which Mr. C. reads his Bible. See Gen. 
6 : 3. Numb. 11 : 17. Neh. 9 : 20. Exod. 31 : 3, and 35 ; 31. 
Judges 15 : 14. Pe. 51 : 11. Is. 63 : 10, 11, &c. &.c. 



Then, subsequent to Pentecost, (as 
Hinton remarks in his answer to the 
same objection,) the first instance that we 
have recorded of the bestowment of the 
spirit, is that of the disciples at Samaria ; 
who had been converted under the min- 
istry of Philip, and had been baptized by 
him. Yet some time after., it was de- 
clared that the Spirit, (in his miraculous 
gifts,) " was as yet fallen upon none of 
them," Acts 8: 16. But when Peter and 
John came from Jerusalem and laid their 
hands on them., they received the spirit. 
Laying on of hands, therefore, subse- 
quently to baptism, and not baptism itself, 
was the medium of their receiving this 
"gift." In the case of the Eunuch who 
was baptized, this miraculous gift is not 
said to be given. In the case of Paul, 
Ananias laid his hands on him, declaring 
that he was sent to him that he " might 
receive his sight, and be filled with the 
Holy Ghost," Acts 9: 17. After this he 
was baptized. In the case of Cornelius 
and his friends, the Holy Spirit fell upon 
them while Peter loas yet speaking; after 
-z^AicA they were baptized. Acts 10: 13. 
Lydia and the Jailer were baptized, and 
no mention of their receiving this "gift." 
And after the Ephesians (Acts 19; 1 — 6) 
had been baptized, Paul laid his hands 
on them., and they spake with tongues. 
And so utterly destitute of proof is the 
foregoing objection, that in the Avhole 
Bible there is not a single fact to sustain 
it. Acts 2: 38, which has been alledged 
in support of it, is merely a promise of 
what the disciples should receive, not at, 
or m, or by baptism, but after it: "be 
baptized— and ye shall receive" (not the 
Holy Ghost, as Mr. C. pretends, but) " the 
gift" Stops ov, which the Holy Ghost would 
bestow upon them. 

These are the passages to which these 
men refer for proof of their assertion that 
the Spirit is never given, except at or in 
baptism: and they have no reference 
whatever to the Spirit's converting and 
regenerating influences, but speak only f 
of his extraordinary gifts. And if they ■■ 
even did evince that these gifts were al- 
ways bestowed at, or in, or by, baptism, 
what would this have to do with the sub- 
ject of the spirh's influence in conversion 
and regeneration ? What is to be thought 
of a theologian who can mistake the mi- 
raculous, or extraordinary gifts bestowed 



62 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 



by the Spirit, for the regeneration and 
sanctification produced by that same Spi- 
rit? But, then, the foregoing passages, 
referred to by these men, do not afford a 
shadow of evidence in favor of the asser- 
tion that even these extraordinary gifts 
of the Spirit were ever obtained by bap- 
tism. The proof which they furnish is 
directly at variance with the objection 
professedly founded upon it. But we 
have said sufficient on these points and it 
is time to proceed to the next topic. 

SECTION V. 

Regeneration. 

In the preceding section we have dis- 
cussed the doctrine of the Spirit's influ- 
ence in conversion and regeneration. 
And in here treating specifically of this 
last named doctrine, we shall endeavor to 
present a plain, practical view of it ; and 
shall not perplex the subject with the at- 
tempt to present and defend any mere 
theory. The Bible is sufficiently plain 
on this subject, for all practical purposes, 
and to its representations we shall con- 
fine our remarks. The gross caricature 
of it which Mr. C. has presented, and 
his followers adopted, shows in how de- 
plorable a state they are in respect to 
their eternal interests; and we entreat 
that they would seriously consider the 
subject, as here briefly presented from 
the Bible, that they may see how essen- 
tially defective their own system is ; and 
be rescued from a soul-destroying delu- 
sion before it is too late. Respecting 
this great spiritual change Mr, C. con- 
fessedly knows nothing at all. To be 
fully assured of this, we need only cast 
our eyes over the foregoing extracts from 
his writings. How, then, can he rightly 
exhibit the truth respecting it ? I entreat 
his followers to remember that the scheme 
of Mr. C. and the Bible doctrine on this 
subject, are as opposite to each other as 
Hell and Heaven. Let them not trust 
their precious souls, therefore, on the 
representations of a man who confessed- 
ly knows less of the matter than even 
Socinus himself. 

Mr. C's. system contemplates no such 
thing as a real transformation of heart as 
necessary for the sinner, before entering 
the kingdom of Heaven. His view is, 



that religion has not its seat in the heart;* 
but that if an individual will only believe 
that Jesus is the true Messiah, and be- 
lieving this, is immersed in his name, he 
will be admitted into the kingdom. " He 
must be born of water," says he, " that 
he may enjoy the renewal of the Holy 
Spirit." Extra VI. p. 355. Thus ma- 
king the renewal of the Holy Spirit the 
effect, of obedience, and even of the new 
birth itself r 

It is needless to say that such a mistake 
on this subject, must be fundamental, for 
how can it be otherwise ? But in pre- 
senting the Bible view of this matter, we 
shall select the conversation of our Sa- 
viour in Jno. 3, as the foundation of 
what we shall offer ; and which we hope 
will be seriously pondered by those who 
have imbibed the destructive error of Mr. 
Campbell. We have presented a criti- 
cal view of this passage already, and 
shall now proceed to consider its practi- 
cal import. The verses to which we 
particularly refer, are the 3d to the 8th : 
•' Except a man be born again, he can- 
not see the kingdom of God, &;c. 

To " see the kingdom of God," here 
means the same thing as to " enter^"* it, as 
is evident from v. 5. 

The phrase " kingdom of God" or " of 
heaven," often occurs in the Gospels. 
John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, the twelve 
Apostles and seventy disciples, all com- 
menced their ministry with a reference to it 
as a topic familiar to every one, and with 
asserting that this Kingdom was at hand.t 
The phrase is first used by Daniel, from 
whose prophecy it was taken by the 
Jews. (See Dan. 2 : 44, and 7: 18, 22, 
27,) And as employed by John the 
Baptist, Christ and his disciples, it re- 
fers to the Kingdom wherein Messiah 
was to be King. It is an everlasting 
kingdom ; Dan. 7:13, and his sway is to 
be superior to that of all other monarchs, 
he being " Lord of all," Ps. 89 : 28. It 
is strictly a Divine Government, 2 Sam. 
7: 13, 16; Ps. 89: 30,37; Is. 53 : 
10 ; Dan. 7:14. And before he enters 
upon it, and in order to his entering 
thereon, He was to endure the most ap- 
palling sufferings for the salvation of 
many, Is. 52 : 12 ; Is. 53, and Heb. 2. 

* See the last note in Chap. IV, Sect. II, above. 
t See Matt. 3:2, and 4 : 17, and 10 : 7, and Luke 
10: 9. 



AND REPUTED. 



63 



But to guard us against any misappre- 
hension of the nature of this kingdom, he 
himself expressly declares, " my king- 
dom is not of this world,"* Jno. 18 : 
36, 37. 

When we consider these things, we 
may form a clear idea of the meaning of 
the phrase as employed by our Sa- 
viour in John 3 : No one can come 
under my 'protection — no one can be a 
member of the community ichich I rule, 
or partake of the blessings purchased 
by my labors and sufferings, unless he 
is born again. This is its import. 

The phrase "born again," (¥.3,8,) 
properly means born from above, yiwrf^^ 
ai/co^fv.t As though Jesus had said, 
" even as your first birth rendered you 
an inhabitant of earth, and makes you a 
member of the family of earth ; so you 
must be born from above, to qualify you 
for membership in the family of heaven, 
— or before you can become a subject of 
the everlasting and glorious kingdom of 
the Redeemer ;" Matt. 5:8. 

This change is elsewhere called re- 
generation, Tit. 3 : 5, and a quickening 
into life; Eph. 2: 1, 5, even when we 
were " dead in sins^ Also a renova- 
tion, Col. 3 : lOj " the new man, which 
is renewed after the image of Him who 
created him." See also Ezek. 36 : 26. 
It is described, also, as a new creation, 
Eph. 2: 10, "We are his workman- 
ship, created in Christ Jesus." And it 
is such a change of the mind and heart, 
as renders it easy (Matt. 11 : 30,) and, 
as it were, natural for a man to choose 
and act differently altogether from what 
he did previous to it, — so much so that 
the things which he once loved he now 
contemns, and those which he once con- 
temned, (as prayer, praise, holiness, 
&c.,) he now loves. It shows itself in 
unrelenting hatred to all sinful indulgence, 
and in an unquenchable love to God, 
and the things of religion. It is the foun- 
dation of a renewed and right exercise of 

* 'Ek Tfiy KoafAQu <ro6rov, Comp. John 15 : 19, and 
17 : 14, &c. 

t The plain import of avaBiv here is desupere, su- 
peme, and not simply denuo or iterum. Comp. John 3: 
31, and 19 : 11 ; Jas. 1 : 17, and 3 : 15, 17. See also 
Matt. 27: 51; Jno. 19: 23; nor is the mistake of Nic- 
odemus in respect to it any argument to the contrary. 
It is a meaning of the word, however, which, (though 
given in the margin of the Bible,) Mr. Campbell is very 
careful never to refer to. His reason for not doing so is 
too obvious to need remark. 



all the powers of man, intellectual and 
physical.* 

Christ directed the remark in Jno. 3: 
3, 5, S, personally to Nicodemus. And 
hence, whatever his character in other 
respects might have been, it is clear that 
he was not born from above. Yet he 
was evidently one of the most moral and 
upright men of his time, — a member of 
the Sanhedrim, — observed all the exter- 
nals of religion, and was a "master of 
Israel." All of which distinctly teach 
that no mere external observances, or 
self-righteousness, can ever be accepted 
by God as equivalent to this change. No 
morality, or amiability of deportment, or 
constant practice of the duties of reli- 
gion, can really benefit the soul if not 
connected with a change of heart. 

And it is further observable, that with 
all his self-righteousness and knowledge 
of God's word and ordinances, Nicode- 
mus had not the most distant conception 
of the nature of this change. This ap- 
pears from the Saviour's remarks in the 
context. He did not even believe its exist- 
ence possible. And now how could this 
have been the fact, if by this change Jesus 
meant no more than that a person should 
believe him to be the Messiah, and be 
immersed in his name ? If such " a 
mere change of state" j as this, (as Mr. 
C. affirms,) was all thai Christ insisted 
on, could the Pharisee and Ruler of the 
Jews have had so much difficulty to com- 
prehend it ? It was because he doubted 
Avhether this great change could be 
wrought in man, that Jesus said to him, 
"If I have told you earthly things, 
(things connected with my kingdom on 
earth,) and ye believe not, how shall ye 
believe if I tell you of heavenly things," 

* And can any man soberly think that such a change 
as this, is effected merely by believing that Jesus is the 
Messiah, and being immersed in water ? How utterly 
ruinous to the soul, therefore, must such a delusion be I 

t "Being born j^ain," says Mr. Campbell, "is not 
conversion, nor a change of views, nor a change of af- 
fections, but a change of state. True, indeed, that of 
the person who is born again we may suppose a change 
of views, a change of heart, and we may infer a change 
of character, and may therefore say he is enlightened, 
renewed in heart, converted as well as born again ; but 
this license respecting the person, the subject of the 
change, is not allowed in talking of the change itself. 
Mill. Har. 1840, p. 247. 

And, reader, this is all that this teacher of myriads of 
immortal spirits knows of being born again ! He ac 
tually confounds justification with regeneration. T 
tliis he is necessarily led by his theory of remission ot 
sins through immersion. 



64 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



or enter upon an explanation of this 
heavenly birth. And in exact accord- 
ance with this, the apostle says, " The 
natural man receiveth not the things of 
the Spirit of God, — they are foolishriess 
unto him ;" (and hence he will ridicule, 
as Mr. C.'does, " the things of the Spirit" 
appertaining to this change.) 1 Cor. 2: 
14. And further, that "the carnal (or 
unchanged) mind is enmity against God; 
and neither is nor can be in subjection to 
Him." Rom. 8: 7. But in the king- 
dom or church of God above, his glori- 
ous presence is immediately manifested 
to all there present. And hence it is ut- 
terly impossible for any unrenewed or 
unchanged heart to enter and enjoy that 
kingdom. 

As this is the great practical principle 
from which I design to exhibit the doc- 
trine of regeneration, and to show the 
importance and indispensable necessity of 
a change of heart, I shall proceed to 
illustrate and establish it fully. And it 
being the theme of our discourse in this 
section, I again announce it: The un- 
changed heart of a sinner never can 
enjoy the happiness of heaven. And 
that this may clearly appear, we shall 
consider, 

I. The nature of human depravity. 

Every man possesses inclinations and 
desires: and wishes to avoid misery, and 
attain to a state of perfect happiness. It 
is absurd to suppose that any creature 
can love misery and hate happiness ; for 
happiness is that state which is most 
agreeable to nature, while misery is the 
state which nature instinctively and spon- 
taneously abhors. Hence the rational 
creature who has been confirmed in his 
state of primitive rectitude, must, to be 
perfectly happy, have the desires of his 
soul gratified — for the desires and the 
inclination of such a being, and one 
whose constitutional susceptibilities re- 
main in the same state as when he came 
from the hands of his Creator, do, un- 
doubtedly lead him to true happiness. 
To be perfectly holy is to be happy ; and 
such a being cannot delight in any thing 
which is inconsistent with perfect holi- 
ness. The desires of such a being are 
holy ; and nothing but objects corres- 
ponding therewith can truly gratify them. 
Hence, in the very nature of the case, he 



will seek his happiness in such enjoy- 
ments alone. Thus is it with the angels 
who kept their first estate, and with the 
spirits of the just made perfect. 

It is, on the contrary, equally plain, 
that the inclinations and passions of a 
sinful being are necessarily inordinate; 
and that in seeking their gratification, he 
is led only farther astray. And hence 
their complete gratification must lead 
him to the summit of misery and woe. 
The drunkard, under the full control of 
his diseased appetite, imagines that he 
would be happy, if in possession of an 
inexhaustible quantity of his favorite 
beverage. So with the whole class of 
sensualists and voluptuaries. They actu- 
ally cannot conceive of a happiness in 
which their depraved desires are not to 
be gratified; at least, while they are 
with the drunkard, intoxicated with the 
pursuit of imaginary good. 

What then is the real condition of the 
unchanged heart of sinful man? 

1. Nothing is clearer than that it does 
not aspire after holiness, and the enjoy- 
ment of holy objects. The greatest un- 
believer in human depravity will not 
pretend that man, when left to himself, 
naturally pursues supreme love to God, 
and entire consecration to his service as 
his chief good. And if any should thus 
pretend, their pretensions would be very 
easily silenced by calling upon them to 
produce a single instance of the kind, 
among all the millions of the descendants 
of Adam who have lived in this world. A 
supposition so important as this, and des- 
titute of a single fact to sustain it, (for an 
appeal to Scripture is not even pretended,) 
can be referred to only to be despised. 

If then man does not naturally seek 
his chief good in the pursuit and enjoy- 
ment of holiness, and holy objects, the 
plain question arises : To what do his in' 
clinations and desires naturally lead 
him ? Is it to the pursuit of enjoyments 
which are neither sinful nor holy in the 
sight of God? and neither approved nor 
disapproved by his law? But before 
this can be pretended it would be proper 
that enjoyments of such a nature should 
be specified, that we may know in what 
they consist. For, as the matter appears 
to me, it would be extremely difficult to 
sustain and illustrate the position by a re- 
ference to fact. Matt. 12: 30. Luke 11: 



AND REFUTED. 



6£» 



23. Rev. 3: 15, 16. See also Gal. 5: 
19—21 Matt. 15: 19. Jno. 6: 44,65. 
Then if the natural desires of the heart 
do not lead directly to sin, and vicious 
pleasures, what mean the injunctions 
" Keep thy heart with all dilligence," — 
" My son give me thy heart," which im- 
plies of course, that the heart is not nat- 
urally given to God, but is estranged 
from him. But we can best determine 
this point by a direct appeal to the word 
of God. 

The following passages are a few 
which relate immediately to the question. 
" There is no man that sinneth not," 1 
Kings 8 : 46. " There is not a just man 
upon earth, that doeth good and sinneth 
not." Eccles. 7: 20. " In thy sight shall 
no man living be justified." Ps. 143: 2. 
" That every mouth may be stopped, and 
all the world become guilty before God." 
Rom. 3: 19, 20. '• If we say that we 
have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and 
the truth is not in us." " If we say that 
we have not sinned we make him a liar." 
1 Jno. 1 : 8—10. "Most men will pro- 
claim every man his own goodness, but 
a faithful man who can find ?" Prov. 20: 
6. " God made man upright, but they 
have found out many inventions." Eccles. 
7: 29. " The heart of the sons of men 
is full of evil. Madness is in their 
hearts while they live." Eccles. 9 : 3. — 
" Every imagination of the thought of 
the heart is evil, only evil, and that con- 
tinually." Gen. 6: 3—6. "Beware of 
men." Matt. 10: 16, 17. "The Lord 
looked down from heaven upon the child- 
ren of men, to see if there were any that 
did understand, and seek God. They 
are all gone aside, they are altogether 
become filthy ; there is none that doeth 
good, no not one." Ps. 14 and 53. — 
" The carnal mind is enmity against 
God, and is not subject to the law of 
God, neither indeed can be." Rom. 8: 7. 
See also 1 Cor. 2: 14. Acts 7: 51, 52. 
Gal. 5: 17 — 21. These are certainly 
sufficient to establish the point before us ; 
and let every reader, whose heart is still 
unregenerate, remember that these passa- 
ges contain a description of his natural 
state. 

The application of these passages to 
the subject before us is both obvious and 
easy. For, if such be the bias, or incli- 
nation of the natural man, then nothing 



but objects corresponding thereto can af- 
ford pleasure in the estimation of the 
mind itself, until it has undergone a 
change. This is manifest at first sight; 
yet it may be useful to attempt its illustra- 
tion. 

Suppose we should take from the for- 
est a wild savage who had never seen 
even the semblance of civilization ; and 
clothe him in a fashionable garb, and 
place him at once in the most formal and 
fashionable society. Would it be at all 
possible for him, with his habits of life, 
to enjoy or relish such a change? Could 
he be happy ? Would he even be easy? 
And would he not prefer to return to his 
forest again, and clothe himself with his 
blanket, rather than possess all the luxu- 
ries of civilized life ? Every one knows 
that such would prove to be the fact, and 
that so soon as he could, he would thus 
escape. And yet, even this case fails to 
exhibit the strength of the principle un- 
der consideration. For, we may suppose 
the savage to have no natural antipathy 
to such a change, and his preferences to 
be regulated by the force of habit alone. 
But with the unchanged heart there is a 
real antipathy io holiness, superadded to 
the force of habits established by a Avhole 
life of exercise. 

And now what are the feelings and 
pursuits in which the unrenewed heart 
finds most delight ? 

Its supreme delight is in self gratifica- 
tion ; and it loathes whatever will not af- 
ford this. " The works of the flesh, 
(that is, of the unrenewed man,) are 
hatred, variance, adultery, fornication, 
un cleanness, lasciviousness, emulations, 
wrath, strife, envyings and such like." It 
is either in these, or in things compre- 
hended under this general enumeration, 
that the unrenewed heart finds its great- 
est amount of pleasure or self-gratification. 

2. But not to insist on this point, let us 
contemplate another feature of the char- 
acter of unrenewed man. We refer to 
his abhorrence, or, to say the least, his in- 
disposedness to divine and holy things. — 
And a nature truly indisposed to the en- 
joyment of such things, can, of course, 
derive no true happiness from them until 
its indisposedness is removed. This is 
plain, yet take an illustration: 

Food is not more to be regarded as thf 
sustenance of the body, than the word of 



66 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



the Jiving God, is the proper sustenance 
of the rational and immortal mind.* And 
when it is ascertained that the stomach 
of an individual will not digest, or retain 
wholesome food, we conclude from that 
fact that he is assuredly diseased. And 
can that soul be in a healthy state, who 
cannot relish the food of the divine word ? 
If when the stomach is unable to digest 
food, and the body is in such a languid 
and tremulous condition that it can scarce 
support itself or drag itself along ; must 
we conclude from thence that it is truly 
disordered? And yet not conclude that 
the soul is diseased, when it nauseates the 
word of God, and all the great obliga- 
tions and duties of religion, and utterly 
refuses to carry them out into practice ^ 

When we behold a human body whose 
eyes can no longer see, whose ears can- 
not hear, and which is past feeling, and is 
cold and stiff, no man doubts that the soul 
has left it. Its life is gone, and Ave pro- 
nounce it dead. What then should be our 
verdict in respect to the unregenerate 
man, whose sight is so obscured that his 
immortal spirit cannot discern its duty 
and prospects for eternity, though sur- 
rounded with the clearest light ; nor see 
its danger though encompassed with pe- 
ril ; that cannot feel or hear the divine 
word addressed to it, any more than a 
dead body to which you might speak ? — 
Can you seriously believe that such a 
soul is spiritually alive ? If the body be 
dead when it can no longer feel, the soul 
that cannot feel must be " dead in trespas- 
ses and sins." Eph. 2:1; and 4: 17 — 19. 

If, then, a person takes more delight in 
sinful pleasure, or in pleasure whose ten- 
dency, to say the least, is extremely 
doubtful, than he does in religion and its 
holy exercises ; will any one pretend that 
such a soul prefers the things of religion 
as sources of enjoyment? Must not his 
disposition and feelings become changed 
first? And if he take no pleasure at all 
in God and holiness, any more than a 
dead man, or than the deaf adder does in 
the charming of the charmer ; must he 
not first be made alive before he can de- 
light in these things ? 

Here, then, reader, is an opportunity 
to test your state and your hopes. To 
what do your desires incline ? T now say 

* See Erasmus's Enchiridion Christiani militis,p. 
54,Leydenl641. 



nothing in respect to that positive hatred 
of every thing like true holiness, and 
that positive love for mere worldly pleas- 
ures and pursuits, which is confessedly 
characteristic of most of the impenitent ; 
but for argument's sake, I have placed 
the case in as favorable a point of view 
as is at all admissable. And I only ask, 
what must inevitably become of a soul 
who has spent his allotted time of proba- 
tion in such a preference of worldly 
things to the duties and delig-hts of reli- 
gion ? no matter how many mere out- 
ward forms he may attend to. Can it be 
for one moment supposed that a soul who 
possessed no actual relish for, and could 
find no real pleasure in religion, in its 
comparatively imperfect state upon earth, 
where our best deeds are intermingled 
with sin, would, by merely passing from 
earth to heaven, whose enjoyments are 
of an infinitely higher and more holy or- 
der, all at once find pleasure in such ex- 
ercises? Is not such a supposition con- 
trary to our whole experience, and to na- 
ture itself? The supposition is so absurd 
that it cannot fail to shock the mind of 
any one capable of the least reflection on 
the subject. 

3. But further. This depravity is of 
such a nature (as the scriptures assure 
us,) that divine things cannot even be un- 
derstood by the unregenerate, until they 
are renewed by the Spirit of God. And 
we are also taught that there is an under- 
standing of divine things, peculiar to the 
children of God alone. " The natural 
man receiveth not the things of the Spir- 
it of God, for they are foolishness unto 
him; neither can he hnoio them^ because 
they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. 
2: 14. " No man knoweth the Son but 
the Father ; neither knoweth any man the 
Father but the Son, and he to whom the 
Son will reveal HimP MdXt 11: 27. — 
" They that knoAV thy name will put their 
trust in thee." Ps. 9: 10. See also 1 
Jno. 3: 6, and 3. Jno. 11, and Jno. 6: 
40, and 14: 19, and 17: 3. 

Now can any one suppose that persons 
can enjoy a matter of which they have 
no idea or knowledge whatever ? Could 
a man amuse himself and find the high- 
est enjoyment and delight in reading Al- 
gebra, or Geometry, or Greek, or He- 
brew, all the days of his life, if he knew 
not even one axiom or letter of either 



AND REFUTED, 



67 



the sciences or the languages? And 
suppose he should fancy that he did un- 
derstand them, and should fix upon some 
absurd theory, (as Mr. Campbell has in 
reference to religion) and amuse himself 
with developing a meaning which was 
altogether imaginary, would any one se- 
riously say that the man truly enjoyed 
the reading of Algebra^ &c., and that 
therefore, it made no difference whether 
he understood them or not ? Would not 
this be most preposterous ? And yet this 
case is scarcely parallel to the one under 
consideration — for the unregenerate or 
natural man has really an antipathy to 
spiritual things, which does not exist in 
the case supposed for illustration. 

4. This depravity is of such a nature, 
also, that its subjects are described 

(1.) As enemies to God, and obnoxious 
to divine justice and wrath. " God is 
angry with the wicked every day." Ps. 
7: 11, compare Jer. 17: 9. "The 
wrath of God abideth on him." Jno. 3 ; 
36. Rom. 1 : 18. Now can a person be 
supposed capable of happiness in the 
immediate presence of a God whom he 
hates, and who is angry with him ? Yet 
such must be the fact, if the unchanged 
heart can relish the bliss of Heaven. 

2. They are described, also, as " with- 
out God in the world." Eph. 2 : 12. "Ye 
are not my people, and I will not be 
your God." Hos. 1 : 9. Acts 14: 15, 16. 
If then a person becomes habituated to 
spending his existence entirely separate 
from God, with no delight in, nor real 
spiritual intercourse or communion with 
him, and even avoiding all serious ap- 
proaches to it, can we suppose that he 
can be happy, or is prepared to be ushered 
into the immediate presence of God, and 
derive his highest and sole delight from im- 
mediate and direct intercourse with him ? 
Yet this must be supposed, (absurd as it is,) 
before the least hope can be entertained 
that an unchanged heart can be happy in 
Heaven. 

(3.) Further, they are described as hav- 
ing no goodness in the heart. " The 
heart is deceitful above all things and 
desperately wicked." Jer. 17: 9. "/?i 
my jieshj^ says Paul, '■^dwelleth no good 
thing ;" (Rom. 7 : 18 ;) that is, in our 
flesh there is nothing disposing it to holi- 
ness and to intercourse with God, and 
love for him. Now the depraved and un- 



regenerate mind falls in precisely with 
the desires of the flesh, and wishes for 
nothing but selfish and corrupt gi-atirica- 
tion. And yet many persons ar.? so 
thoughtless as to imagine that the mere 
belief of a fact, connected with baptisiUy 
and a mere change of place at death, are 
every thing that is necessary to enable 
them to take their highest deliglit in 
things, of the nature of which they are 
not only ignorant, but which they neg- 
lect, and which the word of God de- 
clares that (while unrenewed by the spir- 
it,) they detest and abominate, and can- 
not endure even to think upon. 

When Mr. Boswell remarked* that he 
knew not how to be happy in a future 
state, without the works of Shakspeare, 
he gave utterance to a feeling of which 
all unregenerate men are conscious. Shut 
them up with their Bibles, and they can 
find but little pleasure. How then could 
they endure to be ushered into the pres- 
ence of the God of the Bible ? and into 
the society of beings who are perfectly 
holy? Their condition would be miser- 
able indeed ! But this will more fully 
appear when we come to contrast with 
the nature of this depravity 

n. The natwe of the happiness of heaven. 

On this point much may be said ; but 
we shall specify only a few particulars. 

The unchanged heart of man is a sin- 
gular paradox. If its desires are grati- 
fied, they lead infallibly to ruin ; if they 
are not gratified, the man is from the very 
nature of the case miserable. And hence, 
unless the desires themselves are chan- 
ged, he can never be otherwise than 
wretched. But as the sinner believes 
that the gratification of the desires of his 
heart is necessary to constitute him hap- 
py, let us briefly examine and see whe- 
ther there is any thing in the happiness 
or enjoyments of heaven, that can possibly 
gratify these desires. 

1. This happiness must, of necessity, 
be a holy happiness, — a happiness in 
which there is nothing trifling, and with 
which no loose thoughts or desires can 
mingle. This is fully manifest from a 
variety of considerations. 

(1.) Holiness is required of man as a 

. * See Boswell's Jolmson, Vol. Ill, p. 41, 42, Dub- 
lin Ed. 



68 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



necessary qualification for the enjoyment 
of heaven. 

It is needless to enlarge on this point 
further than to adduce scripture testi- 
mony. The whole Bible speaks but one 
language on this subject. "I am the 
Lord your God ; ye shall therefore sanc- 
tify yourselves, and ye shall be holy, 
for I am holy." Levit. 11 : 44, 45 ; and 
19 : 2. "A new heart will I also give 
you, and a new spirit will I put within 
you, — and ye shall be clean ; from all 
your filthiness will I cleanse you." Ezek. 
36 : 25—27. " Put on the new man, 
which, after (the image of) God is crea- 
ted in righteousness and true holiness." 
Eph. 4: 23, 24. "Our Lord Jesus 
Christ gave himself for us, that he might 
redeem us from all iniquity, and purify 
to himself a peculiar people." Tit. 2 : 
11 — 15. And what is the design of thus 
purifying them, unless that they may 
dwell with him ? " Without holiness no 
man shall see the Lord." Heb. 12: 14. 
See also 1 Pet. 1 : 15, 16. Luke 1: 74, 
75. 2 Cor. 6: 17, and 7: 1. Ezek: 
18: 31. IThes. 4: 7. Matt. 7 : 23. 

(2.) It may be thought to be a needless 
distinction to say that it is also positively 
recorded that all who enter heaven are 
holy ; yet it is an illustrative considera- 
tion, which is here of great weight. A 
few references however, will be suffi- 
cient. " Now are we the sons of God ; 
and it doth not yet appear what we shall 
be ; but we know that when he shall ap- 
pear, we shall be like him, for we shall 
see him as he is." 1 Jno. 3: 2. "As 
for me, I shall behold thy face in right- 
eousness ; I shall be satisfied, when 1 
awake with thy likeness.'''' Ps. 17: 15. 
"To the end that he may establish your 
hearts unblameable in holiness before 
God, even our Father." IThes. 3: 13. 
" We look for a new heaven and a new 
earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 
Be diligent, therefore, that ye may be 
found of him in peace, without spot and 
blameless." 2 Pet. 3:11, 14. See also 
Eph. 5 : 25—27. Col. 1 : 22. Heb. 12: 10. 

(3.) Heaven itself is expressly said to 
be the abode of holiness ; and of course 
no part of its happiness can be otherwise 
than holy. " There shall in no wise en- 
ter therein, (into the New Jerusalem,) 
any thing that defileth ; neither whatso- 



ever worketh abomination, or maketh a 
lie." Rev. 21: 27. While " the fearful, 
the unbelieving, the abominable, &c. 
shall have theinpsit in the lake that burn- 
eth with fire and brimstone." v. 8. See 
also Is. 6: 1,9. Heb. 12: 22, 23. 
Rev. 22: 15. Hence, therefore, the en- 
joyments and happiness of heaven are 
pure and holy. 

2. But the truth we are establishing, 
will appear more clearly, if possible, if' 
we consider in what it is that this happi- 
ness consists. For 

(1.) It will consist in delighting in 
God supremel3r. 

(2.) In the strictest acquiescence in 
his will, and in obedience thereto. 

(3.) In glorifying and praising him 
for his power, goodness, justice and 
mercy, and love, 

(4.) And, (for it is needless to enlarge,) 
in contemplating the mysteries of re- 
demption and the wonderful love of 
Christ. 

This is but a glance at the subject: 
yet it is sufficient for the purpose before 
us, and to show in what this happiness 
will consist. But here let us pause a 
moment. 

And now reader, if you have, with 
Mr. Campbell, despised and ridiculed tho 
doctrine of regeneration by the Spirit of 
God ; or, if you have never been born 
again, I entreat you before God, and our 
Lord Jesus Christ, who is to judge the 
living and the dead, that you will put the 
question solemnly to your heart, whether 
you see any thing here in this descri'p- 
tio7i, faint, and feeble, and imperfect as 
it is, that you can enjoy ? Any thing 
that is even tolerable to your heart? 
Any thing that you do not view with ac- 
tual loathing ? Does not your heart tell 
you that you could not spend one day on 
earth in such employments, without being 
wretched? Look at the subject one 
moment. 

If here you take more pleasure in un- 
holy things, or at least, in amusements 
whose tendency is questionable, than you 
do in the holy duties of piety and reli- 
gion ; such as prayer, reading the Bible, 
meditating on the love of God and upon 
his holy and righteous character, and 
laboring after entire consecration to his 
will, is it not the very height of pre- 



AND REFUTED 



69 



sumption to imagine that you can be 
happy in the infinitely higher and more 
holy enjoyments of heaven ? 

If a person loves not to obey God 
here, — or loves not the Sabbath, and the 
worship of God, is there the least ground 
to imagine that he will be able to endure 
the unending song and everlasting Sab- 
bath above? 

If you relish not the holy conversation 
of the truly spiritual-minded followers of 
Jesus here, and dislike the society of 
such, can any one suppose, that with the 
same feelings and heart you are prepared 
to enjoy the society of angels and of the 
spirits of the just made perfect? 

And have you then any doubt about 
your being unqualified to partake of the 
enjoyments of heaven? Can you seri- 
ously think, that while you are most un- 
happy and depressed in spirit, in the 
absence of mere worldly amusements 
and recreations, (recreations which, to 
say the least, are not friendly to devo- 
tion,) that, with the unchanged heart you 
now possess, you can be happy in eter- 
nity without them? — that you can be, 
with such a heart as you now have, 
happy in heaven ? — in loving and glori- 
fying, praising and contemplating the 
perfections of that God, in whom you see 
nothing upon which you can dwell with 
pleasure ? If this be the case, how hap- 
pens it that you do not now, in the 
absence of worldly pleasure and amuse- 
ment, and when you feel cast down in 
spirit for want of something with which 
to pass away your precious time, — how 
happens it that you do not fix upon 
some such method as this of spending it? 
If you expect that such employments are 
to make you happy in heaven, (and how 
soon may you be ushered into the world 
of spirits!) why do you not now spend 
some part of your unemployed time in 
such exercises ? Why do you take up 
some worthless book rather than your 
Bible or some treatise on practical godli- 
ness ? And why do you prefer to do any 
thing rather than to go in secret and bow 
the knee in humble, grateful prayer? 
Why do you rather employ your thoughts 
upon any subject, no matter what, than 
in dwelling on the love and sufTerinofs of 
the compassionate Lamb of God for our 
guilty world ? You know that it would 
distress you beyond measure to be com- . 



pelled to spend but a few days in such 
employments on earth ; and yet you suffer 
Satan to delude you with the monstrous 
expectation that you can, without a radi- 
cal change, or by merely believing a 
simple fact and being immersed, be happy 
in such, or similar employments through 
eternity ! 

Before you can be happy in such 
things, you see that you must undergo a 
vital — a radical change. A change that 
comprehends every faculty of heart and 
soul. It must be so complete, (as above 
remarked.) that you will hate the things 
that you now love, as your chief good ; 
and love the things you now hate. Is 
not here something, then, which calls 
for the most vigorous exertion of all 
your powers, and the serious and diligent 
improvement of all your time? 

Do not say that this is requiring too 
much. Remember, it is eternal lite 
that is at stake, — it is heaven itself And 
unless a man is born again he caimot 
enter the kingdom of God. 

Do not say that God can at once 
change your heart upon a death-bed. 
For God does not depart from his ordin- 
ary method of operation, merely to en- 
courage negligence, or disobedience to 
his commands. 

But you are unwilling, perhaps, to 
admit that you hate God, though you 
may admit that your heart has never un- 
dergone a change. 

Now, to say nothing of the fact that 
this is in direct contradiction to the word 
of God, I would merely urge you to 
consider w*hat is your present disposition 
and temper. Consider also how hatred 
to any one is manifested. Is it not by 
disliking to think upon him ? — or to have 
him in your memory? And when once 
he occurs to mind for a moment, is it not 
by driving away all thoughts of him, 
either by directly refusing to entertain 
the thousfht, or by leading the mind to 
contemplate other subjects ? This is not 
the way in which you treat a friend 
whom you love, or have a regard for, 
but the way in which you treat a person 
or thing that is hateful to you. 

And is not this precisely the way in 
which you treat God, both in the strivings 
of his Spirit, and in the offers of his Gos- 
pel ? Do not then deceive yourself with 
the supposition that you do not hate him. 



70 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED 



A person who truly loves God has no 
will separate from the will of God ; but 
has the most perfect confidence and ac- 
quiescence in the administration of his 
government. His heart-felt prayer is, 
"not my will hut thine he done." He 
fully believes the testimony of the Bible 
in respect to the proper and relative value 
of present and temporal things, and of 
those which are eternal. Reader, ex- 
amine yourself then by this evidence, 
and ascertain if it be a feature of your 
character. Have you any desire after 
any sinful gratification? And if so, can 
you say to God, " Thy will be done?" 
Does your confidence in him lead you 
to check the propensities of your natural 
heart? And do the declarations which 
he has made respecting eternal things 
lead you to treat those things as realities? 
as much so as things perceptible by sense 
alone? If not, do not deceive yourself! 
You are yet "in the gall of bitterness 
and in the bonds of iniquity." 

But here some one may be led to ask, 
are we to he allowed no enjoyments here ? 
Has not God given us the blessings 
which we possess in order that we may 
be happy and enjoy ourselves? But 
what do you mean by pleasure and en- 
joyment? Do you mean the pursuit of 
courses of sin and rebellion against God ? 
Do you mean neglecting your precious 
soul and the "great salvation" offered by 
Christ? And is this the enjoyment in 
which you delight? Do you seriously 
suppose that God has bestowed upon you 
any blessing in order that you might em- 
ploy it in forge tfulness of him, or in re- 
bellion against him ? in manifest neglect 
of your duty and of your soul's best in- 
terests? Can such a thing be even im- 
agined by a sane and sober mind ? The 
only proper enjoyment of God's mercies 
and blessings is to put them to that use 
which he designed we should when he 
bestowed them upon us. Not a sinful 
use, but one which will promote his glo- 
ry, and really benefit ourselves and our 
fellow men. Matt. 25: 14 — 46. 

Further. If I were to ask you, who 
have not been "born from above," wheth- 
er you possess delights or enjoyments of 
any kind, you would ansAver that you do. 
And you might begin to enumerate a va- 
riety of things wherem you find what 
you regard as enjoyment. But you well 



know that you do not number God and 
his holy requirements among your de- 
lights. And yet you are not willing to 
confess that you are at enmity with him ! ' 
You can find pleasure in reading some 
foolish tale, or in some vain or ti'ifling 
amusement, but none whatever in a Holy 
and Righteous God. You can derive 
more pleasure from either of those sour- 
ces than from him. That is, in plain 
language, you prefer to indulge in the 
most trivial amusement, rather than to 
enjoy the society of God and of his Spi- 
rit. And can you then venture yet to 
say or think that you love God when 
you thus prefer even the meanest trifle 
before him ? No ! If there is any thing 
in the universe which you prefer to God, 
your heart is still unqualified to enjoy the 
society and happiness of heaven. "Be 
not deceived, God is not mocked." See 
Gal. 6: 6—8. 

Can any one then dispute or deny the 
conclusion from all these things ? It is 
irresistible even on the principles of com- 
mon sense or pure reason alone, no less 
than on the declarations of the Book of 
God, that the sinner whose heart does not 
undergo a radical change^ must be ex- 
cluded from the bliss of heaven, and that 
he could not be happy even if admitted 
there. 

It is clear, (as has been shown,) that 
the afiections are depraved ; and also, that 
while in this state they can be delighted 
with sinful enjoyments alone. It is clear 
also, that the unchanged heart disrelishes 
communion with God, and the word of 
God, and all the great duties of religion. 
It is also clear, as we have proved and 
illustrated at considerable length, that the 
happiness of heaven is a holy happiness ; 
that nothing impure or unholy can be 
found there : and therefore, that nothing 
can be found there which the depraved 
desires and affections of the unchanged 
heart can possibly relish or even tolerate. 
And if any inference can be drawn from 
these things diff"erent from that which 
we have stated above, I am at an utter 
loss to know either on what principle it 
may be deduced, or what inference it 
can be. 

Yet the awful truth contained in this 
conclusion still fails to influence some 
mjnds, because they feel something of an 
undefined hope that in an unknown or 



AND REPUTED. 



71 



mysterious way, the heart may undergo 
this necessary change, either in death or 
after it. These sentiments are directly 
traceable to the prevalence of Puseyism 
and Popery. 

But in order to dissipate these fatal 
delusions, (which, however, I do not at- 
tribute to Mr. Campbell,) and also to 
present the whole subject in a tangible 
shape, I shall proceed, before closing this 
discussion, to establish the proposition, 
that, if the nature of man does not in the 
jpreseiit life undergo this change^ his na- 
ture never will be changed. And I hope 
that a brief discussion of this point may 
not be regarded as uncalled for, or as a 
deviation from the subject under con- 
sideration. 

And in the first place, it should be se- 
riously enquired, by any who may be 
under the influence of such a hope, 
whether the word of God, or reason itself, 
furnishes any ground to conclude, or even 
to suppose, that the nature of man will 
undergo such a change either in dying or 
after death? If there are any such rea- 
sons they have never yet been produced. 
But if there be no reason whatever to in- 
dulge such a hope, surely it is the great- 
est of all follies to entertain it : especially 
as our everlasting well-being is herein 
concerned. 

But, if such a change take place after 
death, how is it effected ? and where have 
we any account of it ? It seems absurd 
even to controvert the sentiment when it 
is admitted to have no foundation in the 
canonical portion of the scriptures. Its 
advocates, among Protestants, do not at- 
tempt to deduce it from any instances of 
such a change specified in the scriptures ; 
but from the exploded mode of explain- 
ing a passage or two by an a priori in- 
ference from "the fitness of things;"* 
while the Popish advocates rely upon a 
foolish tradition. 

But will suffering and torment purge 
away sin and lead to repentance ? If so, 
why have not the demons repented long 
ago ? And how is it that in this world 
we often behold the direst sufferings uni- 
ted with the most unrelenting wicked- 
ness? Persons racked with the most 
tormenting diseases, will (as Woolston, 
the infidel,) curse and blaspheme. And, 

* See Chauncy on Universal Salvation, 



in fact, as every one knows, it is when 
the profane swearer is suffering mental, 
or bodily torment from pain or loss and 
privation, that he gives utterance to his 
most horrid blasphemies and impreca- 
tions. And how then may we suppose 
that the pains of hell and the loss of hea- 
ven will affect such a spirit in its future 
state ? Will it be said that long-continued 
suffering will produce sorrow and re- 
morse at length, and lead to repentance? 
But where is the proof? Do we not find 
that in this world a continuation of pun- 
ishment serves only to harden the heart, 
and render it unfeeling ? Every court of 
justice has abundant proof of this fact in 
the cases of old offenders. Punishment 
leads not to a change of disposition, or 
inclination. For punish a person as you 
will for indulging an inclination, yet 
when the punishment is over we find the 
inclination still existing. Witness the 
case of Pharoah. 

But we need not speculate upon this 
point, or depend upon inferences. The 
Book of God settles it at once. "The 
fifth angel poured out his vial upon the 
seat of the beast ; and his kingdom was 
full of iarkness • ard they gnawed their 
tongues for pain, and blasphemed the 
God of heaven, because of their pains, 
and sores, and repented not of their 
DEEDS." Rev. 16: 10, 11. This is the 
natural effect of suffering upon an unre- 
newed spirit; and if suffering leads to 
blasphemy, it leads to an accumulation 
of crime, and puts repentance and refor- 
mation forever out of the question. So 
too in Isaiah 1: 5, 6, "Why should ye 
be stricken any more ? Ye will revolt 
more and more," &c., and chap. 9: 13, 
" The people turneth not unto him that 
smiteth them, neither do they seek the 
Lord of hosts." 2 Chron. 28: 22--25, 
"In the time of his distress did he tres- 
pass yet more against the Lord," &c. 
See also a very striking passage in Amos 
4: 6 — 12. The effect of suffering there- 
fore upon the unrenewed is to increase 
their guilt and wickedness. 

But what are the sentiments of scrip- 
ture on the subject of repentance after 
death ? From this argument I would not 
be understood as depending alone even on 
the plain inference from the foregoing 
declarations. Does the Bible give the 
least ground to hope that the heart will 



72 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED 



be changed in eternity ? Let us hear 
their testimony. The Psalmist in plead- 
ing with God that he would hear his 
prayer, and extend favor to him before 
death, urges his plea by remarking upon 
the sad condition of those who die with- 
out the favor of God ; and in so doing, 
employs the following language : " Wilt 
thou show wonders to the dead ? Shall 
the dead arise and praise thee ? Shall 
thy loving kindness be declared in the 
grave ? or thy faithfulness in destruction ? 
Shall thy wonders be known in the dark? 
and thy righteousness in the land of for- 
getfulness ?" Ps. 88 : 10, 12. As though 
he had said, let me in this world experi- 
ence thy mercy and know thy truth, for 
if I die without these things, I cannot in 
the land of darkness expect to obtain this 
mercy or attain this knowledge. And 
in like manner, Solomon declares, "what- 
soever thy hand findeth to do, do it with 
thy might ; for there is no work, nor de- 
vice, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the 
grave, whither thou goest." Eccles. 9 : 
10. That is, t should you neglect these 
things here, there is no knowledge, nor 
wisdom, &;c. in the state of the dead, ad- 
equate to repairing the loss, or avoiding 
the consequences. And to the same pur- 
port does our Blessed Redeemer declare 
that the work of life cannot be performed 
when life is ended. " I must work the 
works of him that sent me while it is 
day ; the night cometh when no man can 
work" Jno. 9 : 4. See also Eccles. 11: 
3, which, though expressed more in the 
oriental style of metaphor, conveys the 
same idea. 

We also read that the next great event 
in the history of the soul " after death" 
is the judgment. See Heb. 9 : 27. Un- 
til this event, it remains in precisely the 
same state as it was when it left this 
world ; and this period it spends either in 
paradise^ (Luke 23: 42, 43. Rev. 7: 9, 
17, and 6: 9—11. Luke 16:22;) or in 
hell. See Luke 16: 23. Jude 7;) "waiting 
the time of the dead, that they should be 
judged," &c. Rev. 11: 18. And yet this 
great day of judgment will not occur 
until after the resurrection of the body, 
as the Bible fully declares. 

It is also clearly stated that the moral 
character of the sinner will not undergo 
any change between the period of his 
death and the j udgment. This fact is de- 



clared in every variety of form. Nearly 
two thousand years ago, Jesus said, 
"Whosoever, therefore, shall be asha- 
med of me and of my words in this adul- 
terous and sinful generation, of him 
shall the Son of man be ashamed, when 
he cometh in the glory of his Father, 
with the holy angels." Mark 8 : 38. 
Hence their character will undergo no 
change (except for the worse,) during 
this vast tract of time. He then also, 
referring to Sodom and Gomorrah, which 
were destroyed near two thousand years 
before that time, (that is, not much short 
of 4000 years ago,) says, " And thou, 
Capernaum, who art exalted to Heaven, 
shall be brought dov/n to Hell ! But I 
say unto you, that it shall be more toler- 
able for the land of Sodom in the day of 
judgment than for thee." Matt. 11 : 23, 
24. And speaking to his disciples, he 
says, " Whosoever shall not receive 
you, and hear your words, verily I say 
unto you, it shall be more tolerable for 
the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the 
day of judgment than for that city." 
Matt. 10: 14, 15. Tlie idea in all thesere- 
presentations is plainly this : that bad as 
Sodom was, and dreadful as will be her 
doom at the judgment, yet those who have 
abused greater privileges shall suffer a 
more terrible doom. The character of 
the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, 
and of Capernaum and the other cities, 
who might reject Christ or his disciples, 
will therefore remain unchanged till judg- 
ment. 

And now, how will these representa- 
tions consist with the idea of the sinner 
being in a state of discipline between 
death and the resurrection ? Here are 
sinners, who, agreeably to our Saviour, 
have been in hell for 2000, and others 
for 4000 years, and who will continue 
amid its hideous torments until the gen- 
eral judgment, (which may yet be even 
thousands and myriads of years distant,) 
who nevertheless are found to be at judg- 
ment the very same characters as when 
they died; or according to this notion, 
" when they entered upon this state of 
discipline." 

I wish not to pursue this branch of 
the argument to an unnecessary length ; 
yet there are one or more considerations 
to which I must briefly advert. (1.) 
The Bible plainly declares that a time 



AND REFUTED. 



n 



will come, when if the Lord is sought, 
he will not be found. Prov. 1: 24 — 31 ; 
Is. 55: 6 : 2. It also clearly affirms that 
at judgment,* (which is to take place after 
the general resurrection. Rev. 20: 11 — 
15 ;) men are to be judged according to 
their works," and receive "according to 
the deeds done in the bodyP 1 Cor. 5 : 
10; Gal. 6: 7, 8. Hence if there are 
offenders at that time, they are to receive 
sentence at that time ; and if so, there 
will be punishment after that event. (3.) 
Then, at this period, while all the ene- 
mies of Christ are '■'■under his feet, ^^ and 
suffering the penalty of their sins, "He 
will give up his mediatorial kingdom to 
the Father ;" and consequently cease to 
act as mediator between God and sin- 
ners. 1 Cor. 15 : 24, 25. Hence they 
can never be reconciled to God, never 
can have their sins forgiven, never be re- 
ceived into favor ; for there will no 

LONGER BE A MEDIATOR. The sinilCr 

* Universalists preposterously pretend from 
Matt. 24: 34, that the day of judgment is al- 
ready past. " Verily I say unto you, that this 
generation shall not pass away until all these 
things be fulfilled." If men, however, 
would stitdy the Bible before they pretend to 
explain it, they would not fall into such gross 
absurdities. 

The word here rendered this generation yznjL 
fltoTx, is elsewhere rendered nation, as in Phil. 
2: 15; and is often employed to signify the 
Jewish nation. See Matt. 11: 16, and 12: 
39, and 16: 4. Luke 7: 3], and 9: 41, 
and in Acts 2: 40. And in the passages before 
us it should be taken to mean, not xhe genera- 
tion then living, but the Jewish nation itself, 
as a learned critic remarks progente Judaica 
sumitur. 

For where are the nations that were at that 
time flourishing ? Greece, Rome, Persia, kc. 
&c. They may truly be said to have passed 
away. But where is the Jewish nation] It is 
still existing. It is a distinct nation, and still 
separate, though scattered to the winds of hea- 
ven, and still it is unmingled with others, — 
nor has it passed away, in any proper sense of 
the term. This people also will be again re- 
stored to their own land, and shall never pass 
away until all the things spoken of in Matt. 
24, are fulfilled. 

Since writing this criticism, I have found 
this to be the view of many eminent men. 
One of them says, " Sensus est, Gentam illam 
non prorsus interrituram, sed ubique dispcr- 
sam fore donee veinat ad Judicium. Perspi- 
cere videtur ad Jer. 31 : 35, 36. Tivi^v nation- 
em vertit Beza Luc. 11: 50, 51, et septies in 
Matthaes. Mede, in Frag. Sacris, thus ex- 
plains it. See also Veuema Dissert. Sacror, 
p. 235, (Leyden 1771,) and Stokii Clavem 
Nov. Test- p. 237, sub voce yivtct,. 
10 



must, therefore, abandon forever all hope 
of being reconciled to God. And thus 
it is utterly impossible, according to the 
word of God, that the heart of the sin- 
ner should be changed after he leaves 
this world. 

An appeal to reason would determine 
the matter equally conclusively. For, 
(as we have shown,) a person must love 
holiness and holy exercises, before he can 
possibly enjoy the happiness of heaven. 
And how is it possible for a soul to be- 
come habituated to such exercises, in the 
company of devils and damned spirits in 
heli? or amid the flames of a Romish 
purgatory? And hence, let us contem- 
plate the subject in any w^ay whatever, 
we find the utter impossibility of a 
change being produced in the nature of 
man after death. 

But it is thought by many persons that 
such a change will be effected in the act 
of dying; or as a necessary result from 
the separation of soul and body. And 
thus any wretched evasion is seized upon 
with avidity, by those who are unwilling 
to deny themselves for Christ and sal- 
vation. Yet, as I wish to bring out 
clearly before the mind the doctrine 
which we are illustrating, and to leave 
no medium unremoved which might ob- 
scure or hinder the full bearing of this 
truth upon the sinner's conscience, I will 
even proceed to demonstrate how utterly 
groundless is this miserable evasion. 
Few would, perhaps, avow the sentiment 
referred to, while thousands are under 
the influence of a lurking hope or desire 
that there may be something in it. And 
it is oftentimes no less important to ex- 
pose the fallacy of such lurking though 
unavowed expectation, than it is to expose 
what may be avowed. 

I remark therefore in the first place, 
that there is not a solitary passage in all 
the Bible to countenance such a hope ; 
nor is there a solitary principle in science 
or philosophy. How absurd then is it, 
to harbor such a supposition 1 and espe- 
cially when there is the same reason to 
conclude that if death changes the na- 
ture of man, it must change the heart of 
the Christian, as well as that of the im- 
penitent and unregenerate. It must 
change the one into a sinner and the 
other into a saint. 

But let us take up and discuss the 



74 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



question seriously, whether there is any 
reason to believe that death effects any 
change in the nature of the soul; so far, 
at least, as respects its propensities and 
desires? And we shall first reason the 
matter on common sense principles, with- 
out reference to the Bible. 

If the soul be immortal, nothing is 
clearer than that death does not interfere 
with its existence. It can effect no vital 
change in it whatever. For death is 
merely a separation of soul and body. 
Both are the same as they were; only 
there has been a separation between them. 
The body subsequently decays, but the 
soul continues to exist. This separation 
is death. 

Now every one knows that it is not the 
body that thinks, wills, reasons, remem- 
bers, &c. In itself, the body is merely 
a lifeless trunk, — a mass of inert matter. 
This, death demonstrates. The soul is 
united to the body, which in this world 
is the instrument of its perceptions. It 
is the instrument, by means of which the 
soul holds tangible intercourse with the 
scenes of nature. It is not properly the 
eye which sees; for the eye of a dead 
man cannot see: but, it is the soul which 
sees by means of the eye, as if by a glass, 
God has established the connexion be- 
tween the eye and seeing, as we are 
constituted ; though the soul can per- 
ceive without the eye, as the soul of Mo- 
ses on Tabor, and the spirits in heaven 
and hell. Luke 16. But the eye can 
no more perceive without the soul, than 
a telescope could see an object by itself 

To lay aside the body therefore, is, to 
the soul, nothing more than it would be 
to a man to lay aside a glass through 
which he had been viewing an object ; 
or bringing a remote object apparently 
nearer, or in closer contact. It can 
effect no change whatever in its constitu- 
tion, and moral feelings, — they are still 
the same. And the soul must be, there- 
fore, in every essential particular the 
same. Its intellectual powers, will, af- 
fections, and memory, the same ; its per- 
sonal identity the same. It is the same 
being, only it has ceased to use an instru- 
ment. Death can no otherwise affect it. 
This conclusion will appear clearer 
still, if we consider, 1. That there is not 
one particle of reason or positive proof, 
that death either impairs or destroys the 



powers of the soul. It is all mere as 
sumption, and merits no more considera- 
tion than any other assumption — no more 
than if a man should assume that the 
soul is hexagonal in its form. For there 
is no reason, (as Butler has admirably 
shown,*) to believe that a being endued 
with living powers ever loses them. 

To illustrate. How much like death 
is sleep? The senses are completely 
locked up. There is a total suspension 
of consciousness in relation to every 
thing that could gratify them. And yet, 
should the sleep continue for nights and 
days, we find the man, when aroused, 
the same being still that he was before — 
his constitution, tastes, feelings, affections, 
antipathies, &c. are not in the least 
changed, or even affected. No taste, no 
disposition, no natural infirmity either 
removed or modified. 

Thus it is, too, in cases of suspended 
animation by drowning. The man, when 
restored, is the same that he was before. 
So, too, when the exercise of the reason- 
ing powers is suspended by disease, 
swooning, or insanity. Insanity has con- 
tinued for many years, and yet the mo- 
ment the man is restored, we find him 
the very same man — his natural feelings, 
tastes, desires, pleasures, &:,c. are all un- 
altered. 

And now even on the groundless sup- 
position, that death should affect the soul 
by a suspension of its powers for a time, 
(a thing which, though once somewhat 
popular, has no foundation in Scripture 
or reason ; yet the Universalists entertain 
it,) yet we see that after such suspension, 
the powers are in every respect the same. 
Suspension, therefore, does not necessa- 
rily infer the least change in the affec- 
tions and constitution of the soul. 

If any one should object, and say that 
in the cases referred to for illustration, 
the soul remains in the body, while at 
death it departs from the body, and that 
then such a change might take place ; I 
would answer that this point will be 
more fully considered presently. But I 
would request the objector not to lose 
sight of the fact that there is to be a 
resurrection of the body, and an ever- 
lasting reunion of it with the soul. 
And that though the body of the 

'*' See bis unequalled treatise called the Analogy, 



AND REFUTED. 



75 



Christian is to become fashioned like the 
glorious body of the Redeemer, the body 
of the sinner will receive no alteration, 
further than the stamp of a wretched and 
intolerable immortality. 1 Jno. 3: 2. 
Gal. 6: 7, 8. And therefore, even on 
the supposition that death should for 
awhile suspend the exercise of the intel- 
lectual powers, yet those powers must 
necessarily be the same when the soul is 
reunited with the body, as before the dis- 
union. 

2. But let us contemplate this interest- 
ing topic a little further. 

Agreeably to established laws of na- 
ture, we have already, several times over, 
lost a great part, perhaps the whole of 
our bodies, by that never ceasing attrition 
or wearing av^ay, which is in every part. 
We can all likewise recollect when our 
bodies were, in bulk, considerably smal- 
ler than now. Yet we not only are not 
aware of the least impairing, or destruc- 
tion of perfect consciousness, but we feel 
most fully assured that we are now the 
very same beings that we were then. If 
we look back upon any action of our 
childhood, we are perfectly conscious 
that we, and none other was the author of 
it. And hence we may see that there is 
a distinction to be observed between a liv- 
ing agent and a material body with which 
it may be connected ; and we may like- 
wise see that this material body may be 
affected and even destroyed, without at all 
impairing the consciousness of the living 
agent or any of its powers. Nor does it 
in the least alter the fact that the loss of 
the body in the one case is gradual and 
in the other immediate. For we know 
that the loss of a limb, or even of all our 
limbs may take place suddenly, even 
without any impairing of consciousness. 
And in dying, it often happens, as we 
have seen, that the warmth of life has 
ceased in the whole body, (which would 
become inactive and unfeeling,) except in 
the regions around the vitals, without at 
all impairing consciousness or the intel- 
lectual powers. And that there is really 
no necessity for supposing the body any 
other than an instrument employed for 
perception by the living agent ourself, 
(as an optical instrument, for example,) is 
clear also from the fact that we find with- 
in us a power to perceive objects in as 
strong and lively a manner without our 



external organs as with them — (things 
which are equally the object of our de- 
sires and aversions as any others,) as for 
example, in dreams or visions of the night, 
or when we hear or read an interesting 
description of any thing which we have 
never seen. Now what has our orjrans 
of sense, or external organs to do with 
this power?* Plainly nothing. They 
do not assist it in dreaming, nor do they 
hinder its exercise. And how then can 
it affect this power, or our antipathies or 
desires that are called into exercise by its 
exertion, supposing all those organs to 
be removed or destroyed.! 

We have a further illustration of this 
in the fact that the destruction of a limb, 
does not involve the destruction of that 
active power, by which we exerted that 
limb: for with another limb, even a 
wooden one, we can still use that same 
power, and walk as well as ever : Thus 
showing clearly that it is not the limb it- 
self which is endowed with the power of 
moving, but something distinct from it. — 
The man is the same living agent, after 
this destruction that he was before. Not 
one passion, affection, inclination, &c., is 
at all affected. 

3. But further. So far from having 
any reason to conclude that death will 
produce any change m the powers or de- 
sires of the soul, there is the clearest 
proof that it does not necessarily impair 
even the powers of reflection : and if 
these powers be unimpaired, our disposi- 
tions and affections must doubtless be. 

For example: A mortal disease, that 
by degre-es prostrates and consumes the 
body, and finally destroys it, does not, (at 
least in many instances it does not,) at all 
affect our powers of thought and reflec- 
tion. We can, while our bodies are con- 
suming under the malady, exert these 
powers just as fully, (and sometimes even 
more so,) even up to the instant of death, 
or of the separation of body and soul. 

If then, the disease that destroys the 
body, does not at all impair the powers 
of the mind, it is clear that the mind 
must necessarily survive the ravages of 
that disease. If such a disease does not 
destroy our love, or hatred, or desires and 

*But]er has finely illustrated this in his Analogy. 

t See an interesting illustration of this, in Abercrom- 
bie's Inquiry concerning the Intellectual Powers. Part 
II. Sect. I. p. 49. 



1« 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



pleasures, (as we see that it does not, in 
the case of persons who have been very 
ill, and yet have recovered, in whom 
these things are still as strong as ever,) it 
is clear that these affections and inclina- 
tions must survive that disease even if the 
body be destroyed. That is, that the af- 
fections, inclinations, desires, and habits 
of the mind are the same after death as 
now. And therefore what will not now 
afford an individual happiness in the ex- 
ercise of his powers^ and, faculties^ will 
not afford him 'pleasure then ; and what 
will now make him miserable, will make 
him miserable then, — for he is the same 
being. This conclusion appears irresist- 
ible. 

Reason, therefore, thus teaches us, that 
if the soul exists after death, it must of 
necessity, retain its personal identity ; and 
also its affections, aversions, habits of 
mind, &c. equally as now. This is a 
tremendous conclusion to the soul that 
finds no happiness in holiness nor in 
God.— There is no change wrought 
IN the disposition or constitution op 

THE SOUL BY DEATH. 

If then, the soul till it leaves this 
world, seeks after sinful enjoyments, as 
its pleasure and delight, the affections of 
that soul must be the same after death, 
and it cannot then be happy in holy exer- 
cises. If the memory reverts to unholy 
pleasures as the enjoyments of its past 
existence ; if the will and understanding 
have been employed chiefly about such ; 
if all the faculties have been employed 
and have thus become habituated to such 
pleasures and enjoyments; can such a 
being, with such affections, and desires, 
and passions, be happy, or find pleasure, 
in the holy, the pure, and uncontamina- 
ted happiness of heaven? — No I It is 
utterly and plainly impossible. The 
Heathen Poet sung a serious truth, when 
he said, 

" They who oe'rpass the sea 
Will change their heav'n, but ne'er can change the 
soul."* 

Here, then, we are brought, by reason 
alone, to the very point to which we 
were brought by the preceding scriptural 
argument — a soul, whose affections or 
heart does not undergo a change in this 
world, never can enjoy the happiness of 
heaven. And in further illustration of it, 

* OoBlum, non animum mutant, qui trans mare cur- 
runt. Horace, Lib. I. Epist. XI. 27. 



look at the worldling! What a poor 
pleasure or happiness does he esteem it 
to know and to love God ! It is to him, 
with his carnal heart, not happiness, but 
misery. Now take that disposition, 
wherever you will, in the wide compass 
of God's creation, and how can a mere 
transition from place to place change it ? 
When a passage over the ocean to Eu- 
rope or Africa, will change a man's en- 
tire affections and heart, then there will 
be reason to conclude that it may be 
done also by a transition from earth to 
heaven. 

On this single point I shall, before I 
conclude, make a brief appeal to the Bi- 
ble. What does it say on the subject of 
the desires and inclinations of the soul 
being the same after death as before? 
Many passages already referred to, show 
this clearly. But the Rich man in Luke 
16, will serve as an illustration of the case 
of those who die impenitent. 

His feelings or sensations were similar 
to those which he had on earth ; as also 
his desires and affections, v. 23, 24, 27, 
28. His personal identity was in no 
way impaired ; he felt himself to be the 
same being who had on earth enjoyed 
his "good things." His memory was 
not impaired, and in fact he was in every 
way the same person, only his soul was 
separated from the body, and he was in 
a different world. And if, therefore, the 
sensations, desires, and affections, and 
memory, and reflective powers of the 
soul are unchanged by death, how clear 
is it, that he who cannot be happy in holy 
exercises here, cannot be happy therein 
in a future state. 

The same doctrine appears in every 
part of scripture. The five virgins were 
still " foolish " when the bridegroom 
came ; (Matt. 25,) that is, thus many who 
profess even to be Christians, will be 
found when Christ comes to judgment. 
In the same chapter, (v. 32 — 46,) we 
find those who are sentenced in judgment 
still regarded as guilty of rejecting Christ. 
They are elsewhere (Matt. 7.) styled 
"workers of iniquity." John says that 
" the fearful, and unbelieving, and abom- 
inable, and whoremongers, and adulter- 
ers, and all liars," shall be cast into hell, 
(Rev. 21: 8,) thus showing plainly that 
their natural characters are in no wise 
changed by death. And in Rev. 22: 11, 



AND REFUTED. 



7t 



the same doctrine is asserted : " He that 
is filthy, let him be filthy still;" making 
the truth clearly evident, that the dispo- 
sitions and habits acquired in this world 
will continue with the soul forever. See 
also Gal. 6: 7,8. Is. 3: 10,11. 

Upon the whole, then, it fully appears 
that the dispositions or constitution of the 
soul undergoes no change, neither after 
death, nor in dying. Reason and th^ 
word of God both unite in conducting us 
to this conclusion. And hence the un- 
changed heart of the sinner can never 
enjoy the happiiiess of heaven. 

I proceed to close the argument with 
an inference or two. 

1. It may be seen from this subject 
that when God requires the impenitent 
sinner to be born from above, it is the 
most merciful requirement that could be 
made. It just suits his case. When 
Jesus says, " Except a man is born again 
he cannot see the kingdom of God," he 
says it, not because he desires to keep 
us out of heaven ; but because he wishes 
us to become fitted for its enjoyment. 
For to take a sinner there with a heart 
that is in love with sinful indulgence, and 
hates holiness, would be taking him to 
the summit of misery. He would, no 
doubt, like Altamont, prefer to seek a re- 
fuge in hell. If God, therefore, did not 
banish unrenewed souls from Heaven, 
they would banish themselves. 

2. This subject shows us also the ex- 
treme folly of Universalism — or the doc- 
trine which teaches that all mankind will 
be received into heaven. Suppose that 
all men were taken there, — the murder- 
er, who was slain while perpetrating his 
crime ; the robber, killed in the act of 
robbery; the man who has died in a 
drunken revel ; the blasphemer and liar 
struck dead in the very act of uttering 
their lies and blasphemies ; and thousands 
of others who have died in the very act 
of perpetrating crime, or with their na- 
tural dispositions unmortified : — suppose 
they were taken to Heaven's pure and 
holy bliss ? and what could they do there ? 
The very idea is monstrous. 

3. This subject also clearly demon- 
strates the important doctrine, that no 
religion is worth a straw to mankind that 
does not, under the Spirit's influence, 
effectually change the heart, — that does 
not lead its followers utterly to renounce 



all sinful indulgence, and to love and cul- 
tivate holiness. 

What, then, is the value of mere ex- 
ternal forms when substituted for such a 
religion? What is the value of such a 
system as Campbellism? or of any sys- 
tem of self-righteousness, or mere moral- 
ity, as a qualification for heaven ? And 
what must become of the man who will 
despise and ridicule the Spirit's gracious 
influence in regenerating the heart? 

These are serious questions. Would 
to God they might be regarded while 
mercy is yet attainable, and salvation of- 
fered to the soul. Reader, are you de- 
pending upon the monstrous dogma of 
baptismal regeneration? Are you will- 
ing to adopt it as a substitute for being 
"born from above?" From the brief 
remarks that we have oflered on this 
subject, you see what is required of you, 
both by the nature of the case, and by 
the word of God. Any thing short of 
this will delude and forever ruin the soul. 
In the world to which you are hastening, 
you cannot be renewed in heart, if you 
leave this world unrenewed. Enter upon 
the investigation of your state, therefore, 
with earnestness, remembering that ex- 
cept a man be born again he cannot see 
the kingdom of God. 



CHAPTER V. 

DIRECT ARGUMENTS AGAINST CAMPBELL- 
ISM. 

Our arguments against Mr. C.'s doc- 
trine of baptismal regeneration, and the 
remission of sins by baptism, we have 
purposely reserved for a chapter by 
themselves. Hence, when treating upon 
the remission of sins and regeneration in 
Chapter IV, we have labored merely to 
present the Bible view of these doctrines 
in contradistinction from the views enter- 
tained alike by the Campbellites, the 
Mormons, the Papists and the Pusey- 
ites. We shall here give Mr. C.'s sys- 
tem respecting these doctrines a brief, 
though thorough refutation ; premising 
at the same time, however, that the ar- 
guments here presented, were given by 
us in our essay on Campbellism, pub- 
lished in the Biblic. Repository. And 
though Mr. C. has written (according to 



78 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



his own account,) two professed refuta- 
tions of it, he has not even attempted to 
rebut a single one of these arguments. 
But his procedure in regard to this mat- 
ter will be more particularly considered 
hereafter. 

The position on which Campbellism 
rests, — that no one can be discipled, con- 
verted, regenerated, until immersed ; is 
plain, comprehensive, and unequivocal. 

It is either entirely U7iiversal in its ap- 
plication to the human race, since the 
commencement of the Gospel dispensa- 
tion, or it is necessarily false. The very 
terms of the proposition, as well as the 
nature of the system founded upon it, 
preclude the possibility of any middle 
ground ; they do not allow a single ex- 
ception ; for they declare expressly, that 
no one — no person can be regenerated 
until he is immersed. And incase of any 
supposed or alleged exception to the uni- 
versality of their application, the reply 
is plain:-— the excepted person is either 
not '• converted, discipled, regenerated," 
or the principle excepted against is false. 
The terms are perfectly unequivocal. 

The Campbellitesmust therefore either 
abandon this fundamental principle of 
their system ; they must either admit that 
persons may be and are saved without 
being regenerated, or receiving the remis- 
sion of sin; or they must meet the con- 
sequences resulting from their principles. 
They are indeed formidable. But we 
leave Mr. Campbell and his followers to 
make a choice, while we proceed to point 
out a few of them. We shall present 
them as they occur. 

1. Infants who die in infancy, (Camp- 
bellite infants likewise,) either are not 
saved or they are saved without being 
born again ; because, as no one can be 
regenerated until immersed, and as in- 
fants are not immersed they, of course are 
not regenerated. So that according to 
this system, infants dying in infancy are 
all eternally damned ; or if not, a vast 
and innumerable company of the redeem- 
ed have not been " scripturally regener- 
ated." 

2. Paedobaptists are either lost, or, if 
saved, saved without being regenerated — 
for they do not immerse — and Mr. Camp- 
bell declares that " immersion " and " re- 
generation " are " two names for the 
same thing." Hence Paedobaptists are 



either saved without being regenerated, or 
they perish. 

But again: Mr. Campbell declares re- 
generation to be essential to salvation ; 
and therefore as Paedobaptists are not 
immersed (according to his views,) they 
are eternally lost.* 

But is any Christian seriously prepar- 
ed to admit that all Paedobaptists who 
have died are eternally lost ? and that 
all who hereafter die must perish like- 
wise ? Is any one prepared to admit that 
the pious Doddridge, and Henry, and Bax- 
ter, and Howe, and President Edwards, 
and Brainerd, and Dwight, and the love- 
ly and Apostolic Martyn, with the noble- 
hearted Heber, and Fisk, and Swartz, 
and Parsons, — is any one prepared to 
admit that these, with myriads of others 
as pious and devoted, are sunk to end- 
less flames, because they were not im- 
mersed ? Yet without this admission, 
the fundamental principle of Campbell- 
ism cannot be sustained. Nor is this all. 
For Paedobaptists who are now zealous- 
ly engaged in promoting the cause of 
Christ — in conveying the glad tidings of 
a Saviour's love "to earth's remotest 
bound" — must, as soon as life terminates, 
join in the " throng of frighted ghosts," 
because not immersed. Nor let us forget 
those heroic soldiers of the cross — the 
glorious martyrs — whom, says Polanus, 
a cotemporary, (Syntag. p. 1645,) "no 
promises, no losses, no torments, nor 
even the direful terrors of the most tor- 
turing death that awaited them, could for 
one moment swerve from their confidence 

* Mr. Campbell at first shrunk from avowing this con. 
sequence, but consistency drove him on to admit it, as 
will be abundantly proved by a reference to Chap. II. 
above. He also says " we cannot tell with certainty " 
whether those who are not immersed will be saved, 
Christ. Rest., p. 207. And on p. 239, 240, he has as little 
hope of the salvation of those who having "the oppor- 
tunity to be immersed for the remission of sins, wilfully 
despise or refuse," as he has of the salvation of '< Jews, 
Turks or Pagans." These sentiments he also publicly 
advocated in his debate with Dr. Jennings, (see pp. 172, 
173,) and he still advocates them as strenuously as ever. 
One of his best "beloved" disciples in his periodical, 
(which is strongly recommended by Mr. C. See Har. 
for 1834, p. 188—192,) thus meets the difficulty. Speak- 
ing of Fenelon, and the " hosts of worthy and excel- 
lent citizens of every nation and of every age," who 
have not been immersed, he says, "jj/", therefore, we 
arc ourselves honest, we cannot but declare, that in 
relation to the religion of Jesus, they are unjustified, 
unsanctified, unpardoned persons." Atithor of the 
Mirror, in '■'■Apostolical Advocate," vol. I. p. 215. And 
these preposterous sentiments Mr. C. is compelled to 
advocate, or abandon his whole system. 



AND REFUTED. 



79 



in Christ." — The dauntless Huss, and 
the brilliant Jerome, with Cranmer and 
Latimer, and Ridley, and Bland, and 
Philpot, together with a vast multitude of 
those valiant sufferers "who were be- 
headed for the witness of Jesus," or sung 
praises to the Lamb while the flames 
were consuming their mangled bodies; 
all, even every soul of them, have taken 
up their dreary abode amid the unspeak- 
able horrors of the second death — be- 
cause they were not immersed. 

The same fate has happened to those 
devout catechumens of the primitive 
church, who were dragged to the stake, 
and put to death before they had received 
the initiatory rite of baptism. The same, 
too, has been the fate of those Pagans, 
who, (as the records of those times de- 
clare,) were converted to Christianity up- 
on witnessing the constancy of the mar- 
tyrs ; and professing their faith under the 
first impulse of zeal, were barbarously 
butchered on the spot. But to enlarge 
on this point were needless. 

3. It follows from this system, that if a 
believing penitent is so circumstanced that 
he cannot be immersed, no matter how 
ardently he may desire it, he must die 
without remission of sins ; for immersion 
is essential to remission. He must die 
without being born again, for " no one 
can be regenerated without being immers- 
ed." Biit if a person die without for- 
giveness of sins, or without being regen- 
erated, he dies in his sins, and is of 
course "an enemy to God, and where 
Christ is he can never come. 

These consequences appear so astound- 
ingly absurd, and so unlike the merciful 
provisions of the Gospel, that the Camp- 
bellites have done all that men could do, 
to avoid them without abandoning their 
system. But there is no other alterna- 
tive. All that they have been able to do, 
however, has been to produce the follow- 
ing extract from the Christian Baptist 
of Mr. Campbell, Vol. VII. p. 166. " I 
doubt not," says Mr. Campbell, "but 
such Pasdobaptists as simply mistake 
the meaning and design of the Chris- 
tian institution, who, nevertheless are, 
as far as they know, obedient disci- 
ples of Jesus, will be admitted into the 
kingdom of glory." But this is not an 
explanation, it is a contradiction. For. 
how then is regeneration, and forgiveness] 



of sins essential to salvation if Poedobap- 
tists may be saved without either ? And 
how is this declaration to be reconciled 
with some others of a different character, 
(to one of which we have referred,) and 
made at a later date than the foregoing ? 
E. g. in his Extra I. Mill. Har. p. 30 :— 
" But whether they may enter into the 
kingdom of future and eternal glory, af- 
ter the resurrection, is a question much 
like that question long discussed in the 
schools, viz : ' Can infants who have been 
quickened, but who die before they are 
born, be saved?' or with the declaration 
contained in our last marginal note." — 
Here then, pressed with the difficulties 
which result from his system, Mr. Camp- 
bell endeavors to extricate himself, but 
only plunges headlong into greater. As 
old Gaidtier has it, " Incidit in Scyllam^ 
cupiens vitare CharybdimJ^ 

But even laying aside all this with re- 
spect to his contradictions, the relief 
which the foregoing admission of Mr. 
Campbell gives to Psedopaptists, is not 
worth accepting. To say nothing on 
the subject of what is necessary to con- 
stitute involuntary error, it is sufficient to 
observe that they have no other reason to 
expect mercy than this very charitable 
"doubt not." Mr. Campbell has not even 
pretended to specify a solitary argument, 
or one passage of scripture in support of 
this pious supposition. He was too wise 
to attempt it, knowing assuredly, that any 
such argument (if a good one,) or pas- 
sage of scripture, would be, of necessity, 
a death blow to his system. 

4. This scheme places the salvation of 
the human race entirely in the hands of 
men, and at the mercy of the administra- 
tor of the ordinance. For Campbellites 
do not allow their converts to baptize 
themselves ; and yet they maintain that a 
person may be " begotten of God, quick- 
ened by the Spirit, and impregnated by 
the word," (Extra I.) and yet, without 
immersion will remain " unpardoned, un- 
justified, unsanctified, unreconciled, una- 
dopted, and lost to all Christian life apd 
enjoyment." (See Ibid.) Hence these 
modest and unassuming Protestants, in- 
vest themselves with full as much author- 
ity and the same power over the multi- 
tude, as his Holiness of Rome. They as- 
sume the keys of life and death, of hell 
and heaven ; and authority " to_ shut and 



m 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



no man openeth," &c. This sentiment 
ought to be deeply impressed on the 
minds of our countrymen, who have 
either been led astray by this apostacy, or 
reside within the sphere of its influence ; 
and it might be worth while, also, to ask, 
how this conscientious ministry make out 
to reconcile it with the moral sense, (to 
say nothing of the sense of duty conse- 
quent upon the sincere adoption of these 
principles,) to postpone the immersion of 
applicants for that ordinance, for a num- 
ber of weeks, or even for a day (as is 
well known to be a fact of constant oc- 
currence among them,*) merely to suit 
their own convenience? and thus endan- 
ger the everlasting salvation of their 
souls. The reader must judge for him- 
self, whether this unaccountable conduct 
arises from the fact that they know their 
principles to be false ; or that they do not 
esteem it a matter of much account to 
risk the soul's everlasting interests. 

5. When any, who were, originally, 
members of the Baptist Church, become 
Campbell ites, they are not immersed. 

The same may be said of apostates 
from the Campbellite churches, who 
have afterwards been reclaimed. In 
neither case is immersion repeated. (See 
Mill. Har. vol. 5, p. 187.) Hence, we 
come to the very edifying conclusions, 
that men may be " Scripturalli/ regener- 
ated^^ before they are "converted," and 
also while they even disbelieve the Bible. 
That a man, no matter how vile he may 
afterwards become, never can lose the 
grace of this regeneration ; it " sticks 
by him" to that degree, that it never can 
be lost, and needs not be re-bestowed. 

We should here close our remarks 
upon this ludicrous compound of impiety 
and folly, were it not that its abettors ob- 
ject to this mode of argumentation. 
*"No matter what the consequences de- 
ducible from it may be," say they, " if 
the Scriptures do not condemn it, we are 
satisfied to retain it." Let us, then, turn 
" to the word and to the testimony," for 
a little while. 

6. Nothing can be a more direct con- 
tradiction to the principle under discus- 
sion, than 1 Pet. 1 : 2, which, to prevent 
cavil and needless objection, we present 
in Mr. Campbell's own version. " Hav- 
ing been regenerated not of corruptible 

* See MUl. Har. for 1839 p. 426. 



seed, but incorruptible, through the word 
of the living God, which remains for- 
ever." Comment here is needless. See 
also Jas. 1 : 18. John 17: 17, and 2 Cor. 
7: 10. 

7. Immersion, agreeable to the word 
of God, is not in all cases necessary to 
the remission of sin ; for Mary, and the 
sick of the palsy, and the dying male- 
factor had their sins remitted without it. 
The last of these cases also proves that 
immersion is not essential to regenera- 
tion ; for the person there spoken of was 
regenerated and saved without it ; and 
none can be saved, agreeably to the 
Campbellites themselves, without being 
regenerated. Luke 7 : 37, 48. Matt. 9 : 
2. Luke 23: 39—43. Should they, 
however, in order to evade this argument, 
assert that as these instances occurred 
under the Jewish dispensation, they of 
course prove nothing with regard to the 
Christian ; I reply, that they lose as 
much as they can gain by this evasion. 
For if these occurrences transpired un- 
der the Jewish dispensation, it was also 
under this dispensation that the blessed 
Redeemer addressed Nicodemus in the 
words contained in John 3: 5. And 
therefore, according to this evasion, that 
passage has no reference whatever to the 
Christian dispensation. 

8. We read of Cornelius, a "devout 
man and one that feared God with all 
his house," who "prayed always," and 
whose prayers and alms had come up for 
a memorial before God." See Acts 10. 
So truly eminent was his character for 
devotion and piety, that an angel was 
commissioned from heaven who ac- 
quainted him with the fact that his 
prayers were heard, and his alms-deeds 
approved in the sight of God. Yet he 
was not baptized. And of course he 
was, agreeably to Campbellism, "unpar- 
doned, unsanctified, unadopted, uncon- 
verted, unregenerate" etc. etc. Now, 
what can a serious reader of the New 
Testament think of this? 

9. The Lord "opened Lydia's heart" 
(Acts 16 . 14,) before her baptism; and of 
course after her heart was thus opened by 
the Lord, she was his "unregenerate 
enemy." Nathaniel, (John 1 : 43—49,) 
who was " an Israelite indeed^^ which 
must of course mean something more 
than one nationally, and " in whom there 



AND REFUTED. 



dl 



was no guile," was also an " unconverted 
enemy" of God, agreeably to this sys- 
tem; because as he had not yet found the 
Messiah, he had not believed on him 
intelligently, which is requisite in adult 
Christian baptism. 

10. Simon Magus, (Acts 8: 13,) is 
made by this system a convert, a child 
of grace, and a truly regenerate follower 
of Christ. " Simon himself believed also 
and was baptized." Nothing more is 
requisite besides this, say Mr. Campbell 
and his followers, to constitute a person a 
true child of God. And yet so misera- 
bly depraved was he still, that he thought 
to purchase with money the power of 
bestowing the Spirit; (verses 18, 19.) 
And this "true convert" on the princi- 
ples of Campbellism, is thus appropri- 
ately addressed by Peter: " Thy money 
perish with thee, — thy heart is not right 
in the sight of God; I perceive that 
thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in 
the bond of iniquity;" (v. 20, 23.) 

Here is a man then, who, though 
Campbellism makes him a good disci- 
pie of Christ, had yet never understood 
any more of the principles of true reli- 
gion, than to suppose that the gift of the 
Spirit could be purchased with money. 

11. Zaccheus, (Luke 19: 1 — 10,) at 
the command of Christ, made " haste, 
and came down from the tree, and re- 
ceived him joyfully." The evidences 
which he gave of being truly converted 
to God, were so perfectly satisfactory, 
that the Saviour said, " this day is salva- 
tion come to this house." Yet as he was 
not baptized, he was, agreeable to Camp- 
bellism, still "unpardoned, unconverted, 
unregenerate," etc. 

12. The case of Paul, (Acts 9: 1—18 
and 22: 16.) As we have already re- 
marked upon this passage, we shall mere- 
ly refer the reader to it, with the single 
observation, that this system makes Paul 
an unconverted man after the Lord had 
said of him, "Behold he prayeth." We 
might refer, likewise, to the case of the 
Eunuch, (Acts 8: 26—39,) whom, though 
he "believed with all his heart," Camp- 
bellism pronounces an " unconverted, un- 
regenerated, unpardoned" man. It would 
be trifling with the reader's patience to 
enlarge upon these cases. We will ask 
attention, however, to a case or two of 
another kind. 

11 



13. Paul declares in 1 Cor. 1: 14 — 
16, "I thank God that I baptized none 
of you but Crispus and Gaius; I bap- 
tized also the household of Stephanus; 
besides, I know not whether I baptized 
any other." Most persons, taking these 
verses in connection with the following 
one, understand Paul to declare, that he 
never himself baptized more persons than 
he here speaks of The Campbellites, 
for obvious reasons, understand him to 
refer to the Corinthian Church alone. 
And for the sake of the argument we 
shall grant the assumption. 

That Paul was the founder of the Co- 
rinthian Church, all will admit. (See 
Acts 18; 1 — 17.) After his speech at 
the Athenian Areopagus, he departed 
thence and came to Corinth, where he re- 
mained a year and six months, teaching 
the Word of God ; (see v. 11,) and during 
this time the Church was organized and 
established. Now Mr. Campbell and 
his followers declare, that no one can be 
either a disciple or a convert,— no one 
could be either discipled or converted, 
until he is immersed. But Paul, the 
founder of the Corinthian Church, did 
not baptize more than six or eight of that 
Church ; and therefore, as " no one can be 
a convert until baptized," Paul did not 
make more than six or eight converts du- 
ring eighteen months' constant preaching 
and teaching the Gospel ; that is, Paul who 
was " more abundant in labours than all" 
the other apostles, succeeded in making 
but six or eight converts to the Gospel 
during one year and a half of un intermit- 
ted labor and exertion. If Campbellism 
be true, this is the sum total of the re- 
sults of his labors. If it be admitted 
that he made more than this number, the 
admission destroys Campbellism at once ; 
for he must have made them by some 
other means than baptizing them, which 
is the only way, according to this system, 
in which converts can be made, or " in- 
troduced into the kingdom." 

14. This passage is also subversive of 
Campbellism in another way. Nothing, 
is more evident than the fact that Paul 
ardently desired the salvation of man- 
kind ; and he certainly knew that regen- 
eration was essential to salvation. But, 
say the Campbellites, " no one can be 
discipled, converted, regenerated, until 
immersed." If this be a truth, Paul, of 



82 



CAMPBELLISM EXAM' NED, 



course, knew it and believed it, yet we find 
him thanking God, tliat he did not bap- 
tize the Corinthians — that is, he thanked 
God that he did not make them converts; 
or that they did not obtain remission of 
sins. 

But again. Why did Paul thank 
God that he baptized none, (save a very 
few,) of the Corinthians ? simfly because 
he feared that some persons might say 
he baptized in his own name. See v. 15. 
Now, if one of the sons of Mr. Campbell, 
(who, we are informed, has several in 
the ministry,) were on such grounds, to 
refuse the administration of baptism to 
applicants, would his father, with his pre- 
sent views, consider the excuse a good 
ORe? Would Mr. Campbell, himself, 
cease to baptize, for such a reason, -enter- 
taining the views he does 1 No, never ! 
What then is the inference ? Not, sure- 
ly, that Mr. Campbell is more zealous 
than was the Apostle Paul ; but that 
Paul's views on this subject were the very 
reverse of Mr. Campbell's. Had Paul 
regarded baptism as essential to pardon 
and regeneration,) he would have consid- 
ered all the reports and accusations of 
baptising in his own name, as unworthy 
of the least regard. What were such 
things to him, when brought into compe- 
tition with the salvation of immortal 
souls. See 1 Cor. 9: 19—22. 

15. We think it needless to trouble the 
reader with more than the following ad- 
ditional argument. In 1 Cor. 1 : 17, 
Paul says : " Christ sent me not to bap- 
tize, but to preach the Gospel." Could 
he have hazarded so unaccountable a de- 
claration, if he believed that no one could 
be "either discipled or converted" to 
Christ, without being baptized! for if this 
be true, preaching, without baptism could 
do nothing towards saving the soul. The 
very object of preaching is nullified, if 
those who believe it, do not receive bap- 
tism. Because just so long as they are 
unbaptized, they are, in the very nature 
of the case, "unconverted, unpardoned, 
and unregenerated." But, in Acts 26 : 
17, 18, Paul himself says, that " Christ 
sent him to the Gentiles, (Corinthians as 
well as others,) to turn them from dark- 
ness to light, and from the power of Sa- 
tan unto God." In other words, to ac- 
complish their salvation. But Paul was 
not sent to baptize^ that is, according to 



Mr. Camp" 11 and his followers, he was 
not sent to " disciple, or make converts" 
of the Gentiles ; or to procure their 
" pardon," or " regeneration," but to ac 
complish their salvation without any 
thing of the kind. This astounding ab 
surdity is true, or the fundamental princi- 
ples of Campbellism are false. 

I am aware that Mr. Campbell pro- 
fesses to appeal to the testimony of the 
primitive fathers of the Christian church, 
in support of his views on this subject. 
He claims ^^all the apostolical fathers, 
all the pupils of the apostles, and all the 
ecclesiastical writers of note, of the first 
four centuries." See Extra, No. I. Prop. 
11, p. 42, and Christianity Restored, p. 
223. And it might be expected, that, in 
a professed examination of his system, 
we should pay some attention, at least, to 
this appeal. The expectation is reason- 
able ; and we proceed to answer it by an 
authority which both Mr. Campbell and 
his followers will respect. We refer to 
Mr. Campbell himself, and shall quote 
from one of his own works. And when 
the Campbellites refute the answer to the 
foregoing objection, which is obviously 
deducible from the following extracts, we 
shall hold ourselves in readiness to meet 
it upon other grounds. " That the an- 
cients sometimes (says Mr. C.) used the 
word regenerate for baptize, I admit ; but 
this was far from being common or gen- 
eral.^^ " Many of those fathers of whom 
you have heard, are produced by the 
Catholics in proof of the doctrine of pur- 
gatory, and as evidences of the antiquity 
of praying to Saints and Angels — they 
were all full of whimsies. Irenaeus, 
Justin, TertuUian, Origen, Jerome, Au- 
gustine, held and taught wild and extra- 
vagant opinions. Some of them taught 
auricular confession, and the fundament- 
al dogmas of Popery." Debate with 
MCalla, pp. 365—368. Of course we 
need add nothing to so high authority- 
authority who has " thoroughly investiga- 
ted all antiquity."* 

* To those who may be desirous of investi- 
gating the patristical usage of dvA^svvawj, and 
KA^di^i^a) interchangeably with Bat^Tj'^a, I 
would recommend an excellent Essay on the 
subject by President Beecher. It may be found 
in th.& Amer. Biblic. Repository for the years 
1840, 1841, and 1843. It is truly a masterly^ 
performance. 



\^ND REFUTED 



83 



The foregoing arjornments^ is above re- 
marked, were published in the Reposito- 
ry, and form a part of my former Essay. 
And though Mr. C, in his reply to me, 
(Repos. for 1840,) professes to give "an 
accurate and true representation of all 
those points upon which he had been as- 
sailed upon its pages," p. 476, he makes 
not the least reference to one of them. 
He does not even cover his retreat by 
saying " such arguments are best replied 
to by a dignified silence." Falstaff had 
taught him something. 

In his more full reply to me in his 
Mill. Harbinger for 1839, he has con- 
descended to refer to them, but does not 
undertake their refutation. They have 
perplexed him a great deal, and excited 
him almost to a frenzy : but yet though 
his followers were crying "give, give" 
us an answer, he does not undertake it. 
He occupies a little more than a page 
with an abortive attempt to show that I 
agree with him in sentiment, pp. 506, 507, 
and that therefore it does not become 
me to argiie as I do ; and here he rests 
the question, as though it affected the 
matter in dispute between him and evan- 
gelical christians, whether I agreed with 
him or not. But may I be permitted 
again to call the attention of our Camp- 
bellite friends to these arguments ! 

The effort which Mr. C. makes to 
prove that I agree with him, may evi- 
dence his prudence, but will not do much 
credit to his ingenuity. He predicates 
the assertion upon the criticisms which 
I have given on Mark 16: 16, and Acts 
2: 38, in Chapter III. These criticisms 
axe republished in Chapter IV. above. 
And he professes to make the following 
quotations from them. "He" (that is 
myself,) " says no person is saved, con- 
verted, or regenerated, that is not bap- 
tized;" and Mr. C. adds, "Haman, it 
seems, was not the only man in the world 
that erected a scaffold for himself." — 
" How many converted and regenerated 
persons, on Mr. L.'s hypothesis and lo- 
gic, must go to perdition ! All those in- 
deed who believ-e baptism to be a com- 
mand of Christ, and are not baptized. I 
am happy to understand that Mr. L. is 
an immersed Presbyterian, and therefore 
goes for immersion as baptism ; and with 
me he says, ' There is but one Lord, one 
faith, and one baptism'.' So ends the 



direct argument against Campbellism ! " 
p. 507. This is Mr. C.'s reply to my 
arguments. 

In repelling these foolish and most un- 
founded imputations, I have no disposi- 
tion to use Mr. C. with severity : for such 
misrepresentations can injure only him 
who makes them. Had I misrepresent- 
ed him one-twentieth part as much as he 
has here misrepresented me, there would 
be no end to his rage and denunciation. 
Let the reader turn back and see whether 
in my criticism on Mark 16: 16, and 
Acts 2: 38, I have any where said that 
" no person is saved, converted, or regen- 
erated, that is not baptized;" or that "all 
who believe baptism to be a command of 
Christ, and are not baptized," "must go 
to perdition." There is nothing like 
this, and nothing that implies it, in any 
•thing I have ever written. The language 
which Mr. C. has thus tortured, is this : 
" Remission of sins could not be granted 
to the possessor of an impenitent, un- 
humbled heart." "No person can dis- 
pense with any acknowledged command 
of Christ and be in a salvable state," and 
hence, " I conceive that water baptism is 
essential to the salvation of all Ojoho admit 
the ordinance to he enjoined by Christ,^ 
provided it he in their power to obey the 
command^ But is this saying that "no 
person is saved, converted, or regenera- 
ted, who is not baptized?" or, that "all 
who believe baptism to be a command of 
Christ, and are not baptized^ must go to 
perdition?" The attempt to confound 
these things is sheer nonsense. 

The misrepresentation has, however, 
produced its intended effect ; for it has, 
in the estimation of those who suffer Mr. 
C. to do their thinking, relieved him 
from the necessity of attempting a formal 
reply. 



CHAPTER VL 

THE UNITARIANISM OP THE CAMPBELLITES. 

In regard to the Unitarianism of Mr. 
Campbell himself, I cannot pronounce 
with certainty; for on this subject he is 
continually saying and unsaying^ with- 
out admitting that he is at all inconsistent 
with himsel£ As Neander remarks of 



m 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED 



Thamer, (who, in the time of the Refor- 
mation, advocated both Popery and Pro- 
testantism,) that his vaccillation "was 
owing- in a great degree to a want of 
clearness in his own mind, and a love of 
paradox, which permitted him at one 
and the same time to receive the most 
opposite dogmas, without an attempt at 
reconciling them;" so it may, as the 
reader has doubtless perceived, be strik- 
ingly affirmed of Mr. Campbell. He 
will both affirm and deny point after 
point, and appears not to be able to dis- 
cover any inconsistency in so doing. 
And after the most careful consideration 
of his writings in reference to Unitarian- 
ism and Trinitarianism, I am not able to 
say with certainty what are his senti- 
ments respecting the Trinity. The 
reader must make up his mind to share 
this very perplexity, for I shall state the 
facts as they are, without attempting to 
decide upon them. I can say, however, 
with regard to Mr. C.'s view of the 
work of the Spirit of God, that it is 
sheer, blank Socinianism; but I know 
not what are his views of the Trinity. 
This obscurity, however, does not attach 
itself to Mr. C.'s followers ; for I believe 
that I can clearly demonstrate that the 
Campbellites, as a sect, are Unitarian. 

In treating upon this subject, I shall 
first speak of Mr. C.'s views specifically, 
and then of those of the sect in general. 
And if the reader should think me some- 
what particular in referring to the views 
of a man whose views are so crude and 
utterly unformed as Mr. C.'s are, I hope 
I shall be justified by the consideration 
that it is of much importance to have his 
views, so far as he has expressed them, 
made known fully in those districts of 
our country where he has been regarded 
as a teacher. We therefore invite the 
reader's attention to 

1. Mr. C.'s Unitarianism. 

The evidence on this point appears to 
oe truly overwhelming. We have al- 
ready shown that his views of the nature 
and office work of the Holy Spirit 
are blank Socinianism. Proofs of this 
kind can be given without number ; but 
we invite attention to some of his own 
declarations and criticisms. 

Until sometime after the publication of 
tny Essay on Campbellism, the following 



was Mr. C.'s definition of Unitarian; 
and upon this definition, (so ridiculously 
absurd,) does he predicate his denial that 
there are any Unitarians in his sect, and 
upon it also he charges me with malig- 
nant slander and falsehood, (Repos. for 
1840, and Har. for 1839,) for asserting 
that there are. " What is a Unitarian ? 
(says Mr. C.) One who contends that 
Jesus Christ is not the Son of God. 
Such a one has denied the faith, and 
therefore we reject him." Christ. Rest, 
p. 122. Now is this using words in 
their proper import ? But the reader 
will notice that Mr. C. cheerfully frater- 
nizes with all, and rejects none who "do 
not contend that Jesus is not the Son of 
God." 

In this sense of the term I most cheer- 
fiilly concede, that neither Mr. C. nor 
his sect are Unitarian: for they all pro- 
fess to admit that Jesus is the Son of God. 
And in this sense I admit that the Polish 
Socinians were not Unitarians ; nor Dr. 
Priestley, Mr. Belsham, nor Servetus 
himself Mr. C. would therefore reject 
none of these from his communion ; for 
none of them contended that Jesus is not 
the Son of God. And agreeably to this 
definition, there are no Unitarians except 
Infidels and Jews. Now is it allowable 
for a man thus arbitrarily to fix an ut- 
terly unheard of definition to a term, and 
then accuse another of falsehood for 
using it in its proper sense ? 

But since the publication of my Essay, 
he has given the term . another, and an 
opposite signification. " What is a Uni- 
tarian? Etymologically it means one 
that believes in unity — in simple unity^ 
loithout regard to person, place or 
thing{!) Technically it denotes one that 
is opposed to trinity or triunity in the 
Godhead or deity." Mill. Har. 1840, p. 
81. Then he gives us another defini- 
tion, and tells us how he uses the term. 
"I use the term Unitarian in its ob- 
noxious sense, as indicating one who 
regards the death of Christ as not for 
sins, nor for sinners ; but for a proof of 
his sincerity and benevolence;" p. 81. 
This definition confounds Unitarianism 
proper with infidelity. It makes Tindal, 
and Bolingbroke, and Paine, Unitarians. 
But is there any sense in employing 
words, (whose meaning is so well ascer 
tained,) in this manner? Surely, I can 



AND REFUTED. 



85 



see none. Mr. C. uses this language to 
Barton W. Stone, a notorious partizan 
leader of the Unitarian sect of Chris- 
tyans, with which the West is still in- 
fested. The old man who had joined 
the Campbellites without forsaking his 
Unitarianism, became offended with some 
of Mr. C.'s language in his reply to me, 
(to which we shall refer presently,) and 
asked for an explanation. Mr. C. gives 
him this explanation of what he means 
when he speaks of '• the infamy of Unita- 
rianism," &-C. And thus his old ally in 
the "reformation" is contented still to 
remain in Mr. C.'s ranks. I also con- 
cede, that in this '■'■ obnoxious''' sense, in 
which Mr. C. employs the term, I do 
not mean that he or his sect are Unita- 
rian. For, with the Polish Socinians, 
they profess to believe that •' Christ died 
for sins, and for sinners ,"* though mul- 
titudes of them deny his true Godhead. 

Now I wish it understood that in this 
dissertation, I employ the term in its or- 
dinary sense, — for example, as our own 
venerable Lexicographer defines it: 
" Unitarian. One who denies the doc- 
trine of the Trinity, and ascribes divinity 
to God the Father only. TheArian and 
Socinian are both comprehended in the 
term Unitarian." Webster's Diet. This 
definition of the term I had carefully 
given in my former essay ; but Mr. C. 
took no notice of it. 

The fundamental position of the Po- 
lish Socinian churches, is the funda- 
mental position of Mr. C. and his fol- 
lowers in respect to Christian Unity. 
This position is thus advanced by Mr. 

* This doctrine Mr. C. and his followers advance in 
much the same equivocal language, as the Polish Soci- 
nians. Socinus says, that Christ delivers us from the 
penalty of our sins. " Liberatio per Christum a poenis 
peccatorum nostrorum." " A poenis siquidem pecca- 
torum nostrorum ideo per Christum liberamur." Opp- 
I. p. 665. And Crellius, the great champion of Socin- 
ianism, in the beginning of his reply to Grotius, says : 
•'Talis ergo est ea de re sententia nostra: Christum 
Servatorem, qui Heb. 8: 6; 9:15; 32: 24. Novi foede- 
ris Mediator, et cap. 7 : 22. Sponsor est ideo mortuum 
esse, ut novum istud foedus, promissaque divina in ea 
comprehensa, quorum potissimum est remissio peccato- 
rum, et vita aeterna, confirmaret ac sanciret, et sic jus 
quoddam ad ea obtinenda nobis daret : deinde ut omnes 
homines ad conditioneshuic foederi insertas amplecten- 
das et exsequendas ad duceret : diende ut hoc pacto mis- 
ericors Pontifex effectus, supremamaque in omnia po- 
testatem adeptus, peccata nostra expiaret, ac promissa 
foederis, conditiones ejus servantibus, reipsa praestae- 
ret, quibus rebus tota salutis. Nostra ratio absolvitur." 
Respons ad Grotii librura, De Satisfactione, Pol. Frat., 
Vol. IV. 



C. " Faith in Jesus as the true Messi 
ah, and obedience to him as our Law 
giver and King, the only test of chris 
tian character, and the only bond of 
christian union, communion, and co-ope- 
ration." Christ. Rest. p. 9. And in his 
New Test, also, he expands and illus- 
trates the same idea : "When one ques- 
tion of fiict is answered in the affirma- 
tive, the way of happiness is laid open, 
and all doubts on the nature of true piety 
and humanity are dissipated. — The fact is 
a historic one, and this question is of the 
same nature. It is this — was Jesus the 
Nazarine the Son and Apostle of God .'"' 
Pref. p. 27. These quotations we have 
given more fully in Chap. IL above; and 
the doctrine which they express, Mr. C. 
stirenuously defends in his reply to me. 
Now this very doctrine as here expressed 
is the great principle of Socinian unit}^ ; 
only that the Socinians are not so latitu- 
dinarian as Mr. C. If the literature of 
this gentleman w^ould warrant the suppo- 
sition, one might be led to suspect that 
he had actually been translating the So- 
cinian authors. Take one example from 
Crellius, (in which the Socinian appears 
even sounder than the Campbellite.) I 
:eed not translate it, as the very idea is 
affirmed in the above extracts from Mr. 
C. " Primum enim, cum mors Christi 
apertissime testetur, Jesum esse Christum 
Dei filium 1 Johan. 5: 4, 6, 8, 9; sen 
Regem Israelis olim a Deo promissura, 
Matth. 26: 63 et seq. 27, 37, 40, 42, 43; 
Luc. 22: 67 et seq. &;c. Quod quia de 
se constanter asseverabat, a suis hostibus 
damnatus, et in crucem. Matt. 26: 36 — 
Job. 19: 19 et seq. testante inscriptione 
ei affixa, est actus, nee potuit prsesentissi- 
mo tam atroeis et ignominiosae mortis ac 
metu quicquam ab hac asseveratione dimo- 
veri ; an non simul de veritate turn univer- 
sae Christi doctrinse tum promissorum in 
ea propositonim clare testatur ? siquidem 
nemo credere potest Jesum esse Christum 
Dei filium, quin simul totam ipsius divi- 
nam doctrinam esse credat. Unde haec 
Christians fidei ac professionis sum- 
ma ET DISCIPULORUM ChRISTI NOTA IN SA- 

cRis literis coNSTiTuiTUR, Joh. 20: 31 ; 
Actor. 8: 37; 1 Joh. 2: 22; 4: 2, 3, 15; 5: 
1, 5, adde Matt. 16: 16. Johan. 1: 50; 6: 
69; 9: 22, 35, 36, 37; 11: 27; Actor. 
2: 36; Rom. 10: 10; 1 Cor. 12: 3." 
Pol. Frat. lY. in Respon. initio ad 



86 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



Grot. Here not only Mr. C.'s doctrine of 
Unity is asserted and maintained to be 
the summary of Christian faith and 
'profession^'' but it is attempted to be 
proved by the very texts adduced for this 
purpose by Mr. C. And yet he has the 
hardihood to deny that his system is es- 
sentially Socinian ! Mr. C. says that 
this very '•''faith and 'profession!'' is the 
ground of Christian unity ; and so say 
the Socinians, — and yet his views are not 
Socinian ! ! 

As above remarked, Mr. C.'s doctrine of 
the Spirit of God, is the doctrine of the So- 
cinian school. In reading their works on 
this subject, there is also a most striking 
coincidence observable between ^Aeir crit- 
icisms (on the texts alleged by us to sustain 
our views,) and the criticisms of Mr. C. 
In the appendix to the 2d ed. of his New 
Testament, p. 453, he says, " In the an- 
tecedent economy, the supreme authori- 
ty was in the name of the Father. In 
the present economy, the supreme au- 
thority is in the name of the Lord Jesus. ^ 
But in no economy, (for it is contrary to 
the genius of every economy,) is the 
name of the Holy Spirit used as author- 
ity. Nothing was ever commanded to he 
done in the name of or by the authority 
of the Holy Spirit!''' It needs no words 
to show that this is sheer Unitarianism, 
and its direct contrariety to the Bible is 
also clear. I will specify a few passages. 
I say nothing of the Prophets speak- 
ing as they were moved by the Holy 
Ghost ; but let the reader consult such 
passages as the following : " The Spirit 

* It was in consequence of his employing such vague 
and ambiguous expressions that for a long time many 
thought Mr. C. entertained correct views of the person 
of Christ. But Socinus equivocated in the same way. 
He has precisely the same expression as Mr. C.'s above. 
Referring to the economy or Gospel church he says 
Christ, "est infinita in Ecclesia." "Ms po2oer in the 
church is infinite :" and again, «' Omnipotentiam in Ec- 
clesia voeo, datam Christo potestatem servandi omnes 
qui ipsi obediunt." Opp. 11. p. 769. Again, he says " the 
man Christ is Lord of us all, and also of all the angels." 
" Imo, Christus homo est Dominus omnium nostrum, 
adeoque angelorum omnium," p. 776. And in some 
things pertaining to the glory of Christ, Socinus seems 
to have gone further than Mr. C. On p. 772, speaking 
to a professed Christian who refused to worship Christ 
even as the Father is worshipped, he says, with a good 
deal of asperity, » Q,uotquot ego, vidi adorationis Christi 
oppugnatores, omnes tandem in atheismuni sunt pro- 
lapsi : quod et tibi accidet, nisi sententiam mutaveris :" 
i.e. "I have seen many opposers of the worship of 
Christ who are all fallen into Atheism. And this will 
happen to you unless you change your views." Surely 
Unitarians ought to consider this. Is it not the lan- 
guage of a father ? 



said unto Philip, '-Go ncar.'^ Acts 8; 29, 
" The Holy Ghost said separate me Bar- 
nabas and Saul, for the work whereunto 
I have called them.''' Acts 1.3: 2. Now 
whose authority could Philip plead, if 
asked why he went to the Eunuch? 
Whose authority could the Apostles 
plead for separating Barnabas and Saul ? 
And for whose work were they separated ? 
So also, such passages as the following: 
" For it seemed good unto the Holy 
Ghost and us," &c. Acts 15: 28. "So 
they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost^^"* 
&:c. Acts 13: 4, 5. "And were forbid- 
den by the Holy Ghost to preach the word 
in Asia," Acts 16: 6. "Take heed, 
therefore, unto yourselves and the flock 
over the which the Holy Ghost hath madx 
you overseers^ Acts 20: 28. And yet " no- 
thing was ever commanded to be done by 
the authority of the Holy Ghost" ! 

The following are some others of Mr. 
Campbell's Unitarian declarations: "Ee- 
ligious philosophers on the Bible have ex- 
cogitated the following doctrines and 
philosophical distinctions : — The Holy 
Trinity, Three persons of one substance ; 
power and eternity, co-essential, consub- 
stantial, co-equal, &c. &c. Concerning' 
these and all such doctrines, and all 
the speculations and phraseology to 
which they have given rise, we have the. 
privilege neither to ajfirm nor deny — nei- 
ther to believe nor doubt; because God 

HAS NOT PROPOSED THEM TO US IN HIS 

WORD, and there is no command to believe 
them.'' Mill. Har. 1835, p. 110; and the 
same is found also in Christ. Rest. p. 
124, 125. 

It would seem as if Mr. C. had copied 
this also from the Socinians. Take the 
following passage from Socinus himself, 
and see how fully it expresses INIr. C.'s 
view. "Quis Scrip turae locus unumDeum 
in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in Unitate tibi 
venerandum proponit ? " Quis ita ex E van- 
gelistis aut Apostolis locutus est? Quid nos- 
tram fidem his verborum gyris torques ? 
&c. See Opp. Tom. I. p. 530. And Crel- 
liusj after referring to the same phraseolo- 
gy as Mr. C. rejects above, makes almost 
his very remarks : " Illud, inquam, requiri- 
mus," &c. " This I say we do require, 
that they should show us where it is writ- 
ten that God is one in essence, but three 
in persons. That the Father is God, that 
4he Son is God, even Supreme, that the Spi- 



AND REFUTED 



87 



litis God, and yet that these three Gods are 
one God. Thus, too, they say that the Fa- 
ther is eternal, likewise the Son and the 
Holy Spirit ; and yet that there are not 
three eternals, but one eternal. This is 
what we require." Polon. Frat. IV. p. 
88. De Uno Deo Paire. Mr. C. goes 
even a litde further into Unitarianism 
than these men, for speaking in reference 
to the very phraseology which we have 
quoted from him above, he says. We 
are always suspicious that if the word is 
not in the Bible, the idea which it repre- 
sents is not there.^' Christ. Rest. p. 125 * 
Crellius is more liberal; for he only says 
" Neque vero vos requirimus, ut ipsum 
Trinitatis nomen, ostendant (in Sancta 
Scrip.) sed rem ac sententiam^^^ &;c. p. 
88 ubi supra. He admits that the thing 
might he found in the Bible, even if the 
name be not there. Hence, says he, "we do 
not require of them to show us the nameT 
Mr. C. therefore carries his scepticism 
in this matter even beyond the Socinians. 

Mr. C. also agrees with these Socini- 
ans in asserting that only after the " coro- 
nation of Jesus, or his glorification," an- 
gels, &c., were made subject to him.— 
His words are " Thenii was that all an- 
gels, principalities, authorities, and pow- 
ers were subjected to him.'"' Christ. 
Rest. p. 371. This is precisely the sen- 
timent of Socinus and his brethren. But 
let the reader compare it with Heb. 1 : 6. 
These gentlemen do not make the dis- 
tinction between these thinsfs being- sub- 
ject to Christ originally, (he being their 
Creator and Lord ;) and their being made 
subject to him as a servant, when he as- 
sumed the office of Mediator, to which 
Paul refers, Heb. 1 : 6, 14. 

Other evidence of Mr. C.'s Unitarian- 
ism may be had in abundance. For ex- 
ample, he has followed the Unitarian Im- 
proved version in multitudes of places, 
rejecting the translations of Doddridge, 
McKnight, and Campbell, which he pro- 
fesses to follow. We shall speak more 
fully on this point when we come to re- 
view his Testament, a few specimens 
here will suffice. For example, he 
omits "God" and inserts "Lord" in Acts 
20: 28; changes " God" into "who," in 
1 Titn. 3: 16; rejects " God" from 1 

* See also Har. for 1840, p. 81, for still stronger de- 
nunciation of the foregoing terms as " barbarous and 
incompreliensible, &;c. 



Jno. 3: 16, and omits the ascription of 
Godhead to Christ, in Rev. 1:11; fol- 
lowing the Unitarian editors in all these 
changes, and in multitudes of others. He 
also renders Col. 2: 9, " Because all the 
fullness of the deity resides substantially 
in him ;"a version, to which, the Polish 
Socinians would not object. In it, he fol- 
lows a Unitarian and rejects the version 
of both Doddridge and McKnight. 

A more glaring proof still, is found in 
Acts 16 : 30. The Imp. Ver. renders it 
"Sirs, what must I do to be safe ?" Mr. 
C. has followed them closely: " Sirs, 
what must I do that I may be safe:" and 
explains it thus : " The jailor meant no 
more than w^hat shall I do to be safe from 
punishment for what had befallen the 
prisoners and the prison? This is, be- 
yond doubt, the sense of the passage.''^ — 
See Mr. C.'s Test. p. 419, 2d edition. 
This remark he has copied from the Uni- 
tarian Wakefield, though there are no 
quotation marks. He follows these editors 
closely also, in respect to demoniacal pos- 
session. Take one instance from his 2d 
edit. p. 431, where he refers to James 2: 
19, which he translates " The demons be- 
lieve this and tremble." The Unitarian 
version says that demons here mean " hu- 
man ghosts :" Mr. C. follows them thus, 
' James evidently speaks of the spirits of 
dead men.' He seems to have, also, a 
strong sympathy for the notorious Abner 
Kneeland, Avhose version of the N. Test, 
he quotes; and adds, very significantly, 
" So by Kneeland, and others, reputed 
heretics, in the ecclesiastical sense." 2d 
ed. p. 432. The italics are Mr. C.'s, and 
the sarcasm upon those who considered 
Mr. Kneeland as a heretic, is easily un- 
derstood. These things, (and they are 
but a few of what can be stated,) would 
be sufficient to prove any man, to whom 
they are attributable, an Unitarian, but I 
candidly confess that they do not satisfy 
my own mind that Mr. C. is so on all 
points. Even making all allowance for 
his absurd definitions of Unitarian, and 
allowing that he has never met in public 
debate, (fond as he is of discussion.) any 
of the notorious heretics of the West, 
who impugn our Lord's divinity: yet I 
do not feel warranted in saying that he is 
a Unitarian on this point, and the reader 
shall see my reasons presently. My 
candid opinion of Mr. C. is, that he has 



88 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



no settled belief on this subject, and that 
he knows not what he does believe respect- 
ing it. 

2. Mr. Ch Trinitarianism. 
Since the publication of my former es- 
say, charging Mr. C. with Unitarianism, 
he has advanced some strong expressions 
respecting his belief in the Godhead of 
Christ ; though he appears substantially, 
to have retracted them, as some of his 
Unitarian followers were offended by his 
language. See Har. 1840, p. 81—83. 
He says that theT/ object to his " style as 
too Trinitarian ! /" 

Before his reply to me, he had employ- 
ed, on this subject, some ambiguous phra- 
seology, (such as you find among the 
Polish Socinians,) but which, if taken by 
itself, without the astounding offsets to it, 
referred to in the foregoing section, might 
lead one to conclude that the author of it 
was not a Unitarian. See Har. 1833, p. 
9. He is still more full in Har. of 1839, 
p. 412, after he had read my Essays ; and 
professes there to believe in the true God- 
head of Jesus Christ. But in his answer 
to me, you would think him a violent 
Trinitarian. Take an example or two : 
Speaking of the second part of my essay, 
he says : " It was conceived under a 
more ominous star — (than the first part,) 
inspired by a more unclean spirit — and 
born under more hostile fates. Its mali- 
ciousness is only excelled by its impoten- 
cy to fasten upon my views the character 
of Unitarianism," p. 504, of Har. for 
1839. "I hold the person who accuses 
me of Unitarianism — a malignant slan- 
derer ;" " No person who has ever exam- 
ined my writings can honestly accuse me 
of Unitarianism, any more than of De- 
ism, Mormonism, or Shakerism." Ibid. 
" I believe the Divinity of the Messiah, 
is as supreme as that of the Father," p. 
508. " But what is the head and front of 
my offending? Had I courted reputa- 
tion or profit from this undertaking, I 
would not then have sinned against my- 
self, by translating baptism by immersion. 
This word immersion! Oh! what an of- 
fence against the decency and pride of 
Presbyterianism ! A sin that can never 
be expiated, not even by massacreing my 
reputation — making me Unitarian., and 
I know not what, or how many other 
INFAMOUS THINGS." " Mr. Landis cannot 
possibly believe me Unitarian." p. 520. 



On p. 522, he speaks of " the doctrine of 
the Trinity, or any other cardinal doc- 
trine of the Christian system." And p, 
528, " You have no right to call me Uni- 
tarian." In his reply to me, there are 
many passages equally as unequivocal in 
their import as these. And in Har. of 
1 840, he says that I have attempted to 
fasten on him " the infamy of Unitarian-- 
ism." p. 50. 

In his reply to me, he also says that 
" To deny the doctrine of three names — 
of three relations,— of three participants, 
in one Godhead, is to deny the possibili- 
ty of saving sinners, and of putting down 
sin forever." p. 525. And adds that 
though he repudiates "the Trinitarian 
and Unitarian vocabulary," he " neither 
has nor ever had any Unitarian predilec- 
tions, nor Trinitarian antipathies." And 
on p, 524, he has the following noble and 
truly eloquent passage : " When every 
passage that is justly deemed spurious or 
even doubted to be genuine, and when all 
the torturings and wresting of proof- 
texts are abandoned, if I cannot prove the 
pre-existence of the Messiah^the underiv- 
ed divinity of the Logos; that in his di- 
vine nature He ' created all things' — 'is 
before all things,' — 'upholds all things' — 
was ineffably ' rich before the world was, 
— was with God before time began,— -was 
is 'the Alpha and 



' from everlasting,' 
the Omega' — ' 



the First and the Last,' 
the Beginning and the End' — ' David's 
Son and David's Lord' — ' the Word that 
was in the beginning with God' — ' that 
was God' — 'that was made flesh' — was 
' God manifest m the flesh'—' the mighty 
God'—' the Father of Eternity'—' the on- 
ly begotten of the Father'—' the bright- 
ness of his glory' — ' the express image 
of his person' — ' Emmanuel' — ' God with 
us' — ' Jehovah'—' Jesus,' — I say, if I can- 
not demonstrate that these names, titles, 
honors, in their fullest, loftiest, and most 
sublime import, are truly and rightfully 
applied to the Son of Mary— the Son of 
God— Jesus of Nazareth, I can prove no 
proposition Avhatever." I cannot conceal 
it, that I read this truly admirable pas- 
sage with a transport of delight. Few 
men can appreciate the moral courage 
requisite to come forth, as Mr. Campbell 
here does, with such a declaration, before 
tens of thousands of professed followc is, 
who have long repudiated the sentiment 



AND REFUTED. 



89 



expressed, as the grossest absurdity. And 
with equal eloquence, on the next page, 
he adds : " There is not one word of di- 
vine honor or glory uttered by Prophet 
or Apostle, concerning my Redeemer, 
that I would mince or interpret in a sub- 
ordinate sense, more than I would, in 
their application to God the Father." 

And now, reader, are not these decla- 
rations sufficient to prove any man who 
makes them to be a Trinitarian? So 
Mr. C.'s followers thought ; and some of 
them were highly ofTended with him, 
and Barton W. Stone has revived his de- 
funct " Christian Messenger,^ which has 
long been the organ of the Unitarian 
sect of Christyans. Mr. C, in order to 
propitiate his followers, has virtually 
recalled these strong expressions, by his 
definition of " Unitarian in the obnoxious 
sense," and by equivocating on the words, 
" divine nature of the Redeemer." The 
" Unitarianism which I repudiate denies 
both the divine nature of my Redeemer, 
and the necessity of his death as a sin- 
offering in order to remission^ Har. 
1840, p. 81—83. Now Mr. C. knows 
perfectly well, that the Christyans assert 
both these points, and yet they are noto- 
rious as Unitarians ; and the above " ex- 
planations" were written to propitiate 
the Unitarian Stone, and others of his 
followers. 

I felt overjoyed at finding Mr. C. come 
out so plainly as he does in his reply to 
me, and denounce Unitarianism. But 
this joy was speedily dashed, by finding 
that he was willing to propitiate those 
of his followers who had become thereby 
offended ; and that he would, in order to 
do this, virtually recall all those expres- 
sions. What he means by this most 
strange and unfortunate procedure, I 
cannot tell. But I proceed with the 
subject of Mr. C.'s views one step fur- 
ther, after which we shall, in this section, 
drop our remarks upon him as an indi- 
vidual, and shall consider the Unitari- 
anism of the sect at large. 

3. Mr. CamphelV s rejection of both 
Unitarianism and Trinitarianism. 

Whether Mr. C. can find, or has 
found, a middle ground to stand on be- 
tween these two systems, the reader must 
judge. He does profess to reject both; 
and this would place him I know not 
where. If, however, by his rejection of 
12 



these systems is meant only a rejection 
of the terms peculiar to them, his lan- 
guage certainly is unhappily chosen, — 
for he does not make a clear distinction 
between the systems and their terms; 
and when he does specify terms, and 
denounce them as "barbarous," &c. they 
are only terms which belong to the Trin- 
itarian vocabulary, or have been charged 
upon it. He does nothing of the kind 
in respect to the Unitarian system. So 
that, judging from this fact standing 
alone, one would be led to suppose that 
his preferences were Unitarian and his 
antipathies entirely Trinitarian. 

Speaking of his own followers, he 
says, " They are opposed to both Trini- 
tarian, Arian aud Unitarian speculations 
on the Divine essenceJ^ Har. for 1833, 
p. 9. In his New Test., p. 402, ed. 2d, 
speaking of Mark 13: 32, ("neither the 
Son,") he remarks : " It appears to bear 
just as much against the Socinian as the 
Calvinistic hypothesis." In Har. 1839, 
p. 511, in his reply to me he says, "I 
have on many occasions, fully expressed 
my dissatisfaction both with Unitarianism 
and Trinitarianism, as falling short (!) 
of the glory, and honor, and majesty, of 
my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." He 
does not explain, however, in what way 
he regards Trinitarianism as refusing to 
give full glory and majesty to Christ. 
This I hope he will yet do. On p. 525, 
also, he says, " I repudiate the Trinita- 
rian as well as the Unitarian vocabulary." 

In the Har. of 1840, p. 82, he says, 
" I have long taught that the Trinita- 
rian, Arian, and Sabellian theories, are 
wholly a corrupt speech — irrational and 
unscriptural speculations ;" and on p. 559, 
he says, " Men long addicted to specula- 
tive controversy on Trinitarian and Uni- 
tarian hypothesis, are sometimes scared 
past Mount Zion, Mount Calvary, and 
the Mount of Olives." 

Here I must leave the subject. I can- 
didly confess again, that after the most 
careful study of what Mr. C. has writ- 
ten, I cannot learn what are his views 
respecting the Trinity. I even twice 
solicited of him, by a private letter, that 
he would give me a compend of his 
views, which he has charged me with 
assailing ; but he has refused to do so, 
and has only referred me to the " Chris- 
tian System^^ which is merely a second 



90 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED 



edition of his " Chistianity Restored^ 
Our next position is that 

4. The Campbellite sect is Unitarian. 

We have already seen that the funda- 
mental principles of this sect, respecting 
Christian unity of faith and profession, 
is the principle also of the Polish Socini- 
ans, though Mr. C. has made it known as 
a great discovery. And in further illus- 
trating this principle, as explained and 
applied by themselves, I remark that 

(1.) They reject and denou7ice all 
evangelical denominations, and object 
even to worshipping with them. 

In the Harbinger we frequently find 
such language as the following : " There 
is not a Pasdobaptist sect hut what pre- 
fers the traditions of men to the com- 
mandments of Jesus. Even Dr. George 
Campbell and Mr. Stuart, of Andover, 
knew as well as any other men, that im- 
mersion alone was administered by the 
Apostles to the believers ; yet they prefer 
the traditions of the Fathers. Noio, how 
can a disciple worship with such men, 
without being a transgressor a gainst the 
commandments of Jesus? To worship 
God, is to worship him not only in spirit, 
but in, or according to the truth. Until 
it can be shown that the Apostles, by 
whose teaching we are to be saved, did 
command or practice infant sprinkling, 
and call a sermon Worshipping God and 
keeping the commandments of Jesus, / 
am bound, as an obedient subject, to have 
nothing to do with such worship. I do 
not say I would not go any day in the 
week to hear what a Peedobaptist has to 
say; but to neglect the worship of God 
with the disciples any hordes day, when 
I am able to attend, and no reasonable 
hindrance on the part of my family's 
health, is the broad road to apostacy. 
Look at those disciples -that can neglect 
the Lord^s day and his worship, to visit 
even the Baptists, who will not let them 
break the loaf (commune) with them once 
in three months, and how cold and life- 
less they are ! Now as we cannot wor- 
ship God with any sect according to 
*the truth,' we surely cannot be in our 
duty with them who do not worship him 
in spirit and in the truthP Har. 1839, 
p. 401. This passage is sufRcienily ex- 
plicit, and renders the quotation of any 
others on this point unnecessary. And 
what will the reader think of the fact, 



that while this sect thus denounce the 
worship of all evangelical denomina- 
tions, they never are known to refuse 
communion and worship with the most 
notorious Unitarians. But of this more 
presently. 

Thus do they endeavor therefore, to 
prevent their people from even attending 
the churches of other denominations. 
But not content with such mild censures 
of their doctrine and worship, they de- 
nounce them with the most revolting 
vituperation and scurrility. This sect 
never speak of Protestant evangelical 
churches, without denouncing them as 
the " daughters of Babylon the great?"* 
The I following is from Mr. C. in reply 
to a Methodist minister : " But you only 
intended a laugh, in your truly Christian 
spirit, by way of reprisal for 'unchurch- 
ing you,' or the imputation of a Babylo- 
nish parentage to your fraternity. Of 
this I frankly acknowledge that I am 
worthy of accusation ; and, perhaps, for 
so doing, you may convict me of the 
want of 'charity' before a packed jury. 
I have manifested 'an unchristian spirit,' 
in thinking that the Protestant sects are 
the ' impure brood' of the Mother of Har- 
lots. Well, whose brood are they ? Or 
has the Roman Hierarchy any daugh- 
ters?" &c. &c. Har. 1834, p. 156. This 
is certainly very polite. He also speaks 
with particular rancor of " the Genevese 
branch of the Apostacy,'* as he styles 
Calvin and his followers. Har. 1835, 
p. 91. And a part of his " Christianity 
Restored'''' he wrote, (as he declares in 
Har. for 1835, p. 93,) for ^^ Christians 
found in Babylon,'''' by which he means 
in the various denominations of Chris- 
tians ; his brethren of the Christyan sect 
always excepted. And hence his satellites 
when they speak of their apostacy from 
evangelical churches, use such expres- 
sions as the following: "It has been 
about fourteen months since I left the ter- 
ritory of Babylon.''^ Har. 1834, p. 186. 

One of the popular preachers of this 
sect also speaks as follows on the sub- 
ject: "Well, then, seeing that the spirit 
of Romanism and Protestantism are the 
same under similar circumstances — that 
they are both ' the hold of every unclean 
spirit, and the cage of every unclean and 
hateful bird,' that *the kings of earth 
have committed whoredom with ' both — 



AND REFUTED. 



91 



that they have both trafficked in slaves 
and the- souls of men; — seeing these 
things, I turn from the contemplation of 
these iniquitous scenes, with the convic- 
tion that I may as soon look for the re- 
ligion of the church of Christ among the 
followers of Confutsee, Zeratusht, Jug- 
gernaut, Mohammed, or the worshippers 
of the great goddess of the Ephesians, as 
hope to find it in the apostate Isms of 
Rome, Augsburg, or Geneva." Mirror of 
Ismatic Religions, p. 9. In chasteness 
and elegance, this extract rivals the de- 
nunciations of Mr. C, and almost excels 
the most exquisite flowers of Paine's Age 
of Reason^ the Diegesis of Robert Taylor, 
or Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary. 
And on p. 13, this ^^ beloved brother^^ of 
Mr. C, (who is a notorious reviler of the 
doctrine of the Trinity,) further remarks, 
" In this country, about 200,000, within 
the last ten years, have responded to 
the call, " Come out of her, O my peo- 
ple," &c. 

In Mr. C.'s public debates he employs 
also the same low and unprincipled de- 
nunciation of the Protestant denomina- 
tions. Dr. Jennings remarks, in his re- 
port of his "Debate" v/ith Mr. C, that 
Mr. C. denounced '■^nothirig less than the 
vengeance of eternal fire against every 
one who was guilty, or at least should 
continue to be guilty, of knowingly or 
wdlfuUy connecting himself as a church 
member with any of the sects of evan- 
gelical christians." Debate, pp. 84, 85. 
And that this is not a distorted view of 
Mr. C.'s doctrine may be seen by look- 
ing into almost any number of his Har- 
binger. Take a single extract: "There 
is not a limb of the Old Mother, be it 
found where it may, that will not be 
thrown into the burning fire." Har. for 
1834, p. 157. And accordingly we are 
told that ^^Sectarianism is one of the works 
of the flesh ;''^. see Har. 1840, p. 67, and 
Mr. C. himself tells us that he could show 
to us that our practices are immoral^ "if 
we would only listen to him." "If my 
Presbyterian brethren (!) would only 
listen to me, I could show to them that 
infant sprinkling was irrational and im- 
moral.'' Ibid. p. 198. 

But it is in his shameless denunciations 
of the evangelical ministry of these Uni- 
ted States that his insane and ferocious 
disposition is most apparent. If, in re- 



plying to such a man, one should even 
employ severity, who would condemn it 
as improper? I will present a passage 
or two from his writings, and the reader 
can judge for himself of the impotent 
ebullitions of this "troubled spirit." — 
" There is much strife and division in the 
Christian world ; this I attribute to false 
teaching. Crime and infidelity are on 
an alarming increase; this I charge on 
THE PULPIT. Har. 1834, p. 147. Paine 
himself, in the whole compass of his Age 
of Reason, has not dared to employ lan- 
guage so scurrilous: and yet Mr. C, in 
his reply to me, admits that he has made 
use of this language, and justifies his do- 
ing so. He says, " / am neither afraid 
nor ashamed to avow it.^' Har. 1839, p. 
508. See also Har. for 1834, p. 149, and 
for 1835, p. 81, and 100. 

In his Christ. Rest, however, he is, if 
possible, even still more indecent: "iVb 
wonder that atheists and skeptics scoff at 
our religion. Such an army of lillipu- 
tians in reason, and giants in noise, ver- 
bosity, declamation, and shouting, never 
stood forth the advocates of Christianity 
in any age or country, as the preaching 
corps of these United States.''^ p. 369. 
This is the style of Mr. C.'s coarse in- 
vective. And if it were not almost a 
profanation of the name of our American 
Demosthenes, to associate it in any way 
with the name of one who is capable of 
uttering such clownish vulgarisms, I 
should be tempted to make a long extract 
from Mr. Webster's late speech, (on the 
Girard case,) by way of contrasting it 
with the above. As it is, however, I 
shall make but a brief extract from the 
report of that speech : " Mr. Webster 
then proceeded to pass a warm eulogy 
on the American clergy, to whom such 
base injustice had been done in the terms 
and spirit of the will. There loas not on 
earth, he said, a body of men for whom 
he had a greater respect than the minis- 
ters of the Gospel in the United States. 
And this is the class of men so stigma- 
tized by Mr. Girard." Report in the N. 
York Observer of Feb. 24, 1844. The 
infidel Girard did stigmatize this class 
of men : but his stigmas are gentility it- 
self, compared with the low vituperative 
scurrility of the christian Alexander 
Campbell. 

In this style, therefore, are Trinitarians 



92 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



denounced by the Campbellites : but we 
proceed to remark that 

(2.) The. Campbellites not only de- 
nounce Trinitarian denominations^ hut 
openly fraternize loith Unitarians. 

The Unitarian sect of Christians is 
well known in this country, and the rea- 
der, if not already acquainted with their 
sentiments, will have an opportunity of 
becoming so presently. In Mill. Har. 
Vol. III. No. 3, Mr. Campbell, with ap- 
probation, makes the following extract 
from one of their papers, (the Christian 
Messenger,) edited by Barton W. Stone, 
well known as a strenuous Unitarian, in 
reference at least to the Godhead of 
Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity: while 
the views which he entertains of the aton- 
ing Sacrifice of Christ are precisely those 
of the' Polish Socinians. 

" We are happy to announce to our 
brethren, and to the world, the union of 
Christians in fact, in our country. A 
few months ago, the reforming Baptists, 
(known invidiously by the name of 
Campbellites,) and the Christians in 
Georgetown and the neighborhood, agreed 
to meet and ivorship together. We soon 
found that we were indeed in the same 
spirit, and on the same foundation, the 
New Testament, and wore the same name 
Christian. We saw no reason why we 
should not he one family. 

" To increase and consolidate this Un- 
ion, and to convince all of our sincerity, 
we, the elders and brethren, have separa- 
ted two elders, John Smith and John 
Rogers. The first, known formerly by 
the name Reformer, [Campbellite,] and 
the latter by the name of Christian. 
These brethren are to ride together 
through all the churches, and to he equal- 
ly supported by the united contributions 
of the churches of both descriptions.'''' 

In the same number of the Harbinger 
Mr. Campbell expresses his gratification 
at the receipt of this intelligence. He 
says : " From numerous letters received 
from Kentucky, we are pleased to learn 
that Brethren Smith, Stone, and Rogers, 
and others, now go for the Apostolical 
Institutions:" i. e. his "Ancient Gospel." 

There could be no more perfect church 
union and fellowship, than this is repre- 
sented to be. And it will be noticed by 
the reader, that neither party abandoned 
any of their peculiarities, nor adopted 



any thing new. Upon more enquiry^ 
they found themselves to be one people. 
This " Brother Stone" is still a strenuous 
advocate of Unitarianism, as may be seen 
by turning to his revived Christ. Mess., 
Vol. 13. He asserts that the Father on- 
ly is God, and that the Son is the instru- 
mental cause of creation. See p. 45, 
264, 265. And Mr. C. himself, openly 
admits that this sect is Unitarian. See 
Har. for 1839, p. 401. And yet though 
he knows that they do not abandon their 
views of the Trinity and person of Christ 
when they join his sect, he has the un- 
thinking hardihood to assert, in his reply 
to me, that he knows of not one Unitari- 
an in his ranks. See this strange asser- 
tion, (to give it no harsher name,) in the 
Biblic. Repos. for 1840, p. 492. He, 
however, has not ventured to hazard it^ 
in his reply to me, published in his Har- 
binger. But to return to the foregoing 
extracts. 

The Christyans and Campbellites, are 
here mutually declared by both parties, to 
stand upon the same foundation, and to be 
one people. Ministers are sent out by the 
same societies, conjointly, to visit the 
churches in common, and to preach to 
them, and to be supported by contribu- 
tions from each. And this was of course 
to promulgate the same doctrines. 

Now, as Mr. Campbell and his imme- 
diate followers, have been so very re- 
served and ambiguous in communicating 
their views of those doctrines, which are 
regarded by evang-elical Christians, as 
fundamental ; and as the Christyans have 
been more communicative on the subject, 
it will, of course, not be wronging the 
Campbellites (as they are " one family,") 
to take for granted, that, to ascertain the 
sentiments of one sect, will be to ascertain 
the sentiments of both, on these important 
doctrines. 

I have before me a number of the 
standard authors of this last named sect. 
To quote from all, would swell these re- 
marks to an unreasonable length. We 
will, therefore, confine our quotations 
principally to one. Kinkade's Bible 
Doctrine, is a text-book of the Christyans. 
That it may be evident that I do them no 
injustice, by this assertion, I will establish 
its correctness. 

1. Kinkade's Bible Doctrine is sold by 
the ministers of this sect to their people, 



AND REFUTED. 



93 



as containing the views which tney enter- 
tain of the religion of Christ. Wher- 
ever I have travelled amongst them, I 
have found this to be the fact. The 
same fact has been likewise repeatedly 
stated in their periodicals. Among oth- 
ers I instance the " Gospel Luminary" 
of New York. 

2. Mr. William Lane, one of the most 
popular preachers of this sect, declared, 
during his debate with Mr. McCalla, that 
it contained the vieios of the Society, to 
which he belonged ; and that it contain- 
ed his views. 

3. In the summer of 1831, 1 wrote to 
Mr. Frederick Plummer of Philadelphia, 
a very popular preacher of this Society, 
requesting him to furnish me with a book, 
or books, containing a full and accurate 
expression of the peculiar and distinctive 
views of the Society to which he belong- 
ed. He sent me Kinkade's Bible Doc- 
trine, together with a few tracts sustain- 
ing the doctrines of that book. 

This book, therefore, manifestly con- 
tains an acknowledged and approved ex- 
pression of the views of this Society. — 
Let us then see what views they really 
entertain respecting some of the funda- 
mental doctrines of Christianity. 

I. The Trinity. — " The arguments 
that are advanced, at the present day, 
against the Trinity, will appear to future 
generations, as the arguments of the 
Prophets against the Heathen Gods, do 
to us now ; that is, efforts to disprove self- 
evident falsehoods." " It will appear 
strange to future generations, that profes- 
sors of religion in the nineteenth century 
should need long arguments to convince 
them that three distinct persons are not 
one being," p. 48. " Trinitarianism runs 
me into a dilemma between tritheism and 
Atheism." p. 40. 

II. The Plenary Deity of Christ— On 
p. 41, are the following horrible expres- 
sions : " If Christ is the self-existent 
God, and at the same time the Son of the 
same God, then he must be the Son of 
himself If he is the self-existent God, 
and if that very self-existent God, is the 
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, then he 
must be Father of himself. And if he is 
the father of that being whose Son he is. 
then he must be his own grandfather! " 

Again : " The testimony which affirms 
that the individual person of Jesus Christ, 



is the uncreated, infinite, independent 
God ; and at the same time, a created, fi- 
nite, dependent man, only proves itself 
unworthy of belief" p. 72. On p. 75, 
he thus ridicules this sacred subject: "If 
Christ had been equal with God in the 
fullest sense of the word, he would not 
have denied it ; because it is not likely 
that the Supreme Being would deny his 
own power and dignity, for fear the 
Jews would throw stones at him." Will 
the reader believe it, when I solemnly as- 
sure him, that the foregoing is far, very 
far^ from being the most revolting of his 
language in relation to this subject % Yet 
persons who advocate such sentiments, 
Mr. Campbell denominates " brethren^* 
and extends to them the right hand of fel- 
lowship ; while with the same breath he 
denounces all evangelical denominations. 

III. The Holy Spirit.— The following 
is the caption of Chap. I, Part III, of 
Kinkade's book : " To prove that the 
Holy Spirit is not a distinct person from 
God." Onp. 71, hesays: « God's Spirit 
bears the same relation to God, that the 
Spirit of man does to man." " There is 
not one example in the Scriptures, of 
prayer, praise, or thanks, being offered 
up to the Holy Spirit ; therefore those 
that worship it, as a distinct person from 
the ' Father, do it without any scripture 
authority." p. 186. 

IV. The Person of God.— The object 
of these " brethren" of Mr. Campbell, in 
advancing the following sentiments, is ev- 
idently to explode the doctrine of the 
Trinity. 

After Socinus, Kinkade says : " Many 
have taught, and more have believed 
that his (God's) person fills all immen- 
sity. In my view this very much re- 
sembles the doctrine of the ancient 
heathen, who held that matter is self- 
existent, and that God is the soul of 
matter." "If this doctrine be true, God 
must be the oriofin and container of all 
the evil in the universe. Hell and the 
devil, all natural corruption, and moral 
turpitude, must be incorporated in his 
person;" p. 156. "If his essence fills 
all immensity, he cannot be an active 
being, because there could be no room 
for him to act in, etc. He cannot even 
turn round, etc. He cannot have the 
power of locomotion ;" etc. p. 157. " It 
. is only from the Bible that we learn the 



94 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



existence of God, and that book ascribes 
to him nearly all the members of the 
human body, and represents him to be in 
the shape of a man. Ears, hands, and 
eyes, are part of an intelligent ruler, and 
if God has none of these, he cannot hear, 
handle, or see us," etc.; p. 160. Mr. 
Lane, in his debate with Mr. McCalla, 
declared expressly, that he adopted these 
views of the perso7i of God ; and he 
attempted to support them by reasoning. 

V. No doctrine of the Gospel is more 
precious to the sincere Christian, than that 
'' Jesus bore our sins in his own body on 
the tree." But how do these "brethren" 
of the Campbellites treat this delightful 
and soul-cheering truth? Let us hear: 
" Many professors of religion say that 
Christ bore the wrath of God that was 
due to sinners, fulfilled the law of God 
and suffered its penalty in their stead, 
and so reconciled him to mankind. But 
this doctrine is not in the Bible. There 
is no text in that book which says, he 
made satisfaction to justice for sinners^ 
or that he bore the wrath of God that 
was due to sinners ; or^ that he fulfilled 
the law^ or suffered its penalty instead 
of sinners ;^^ p. 191. "You see it is im- 
possible that Christ could have suffered 
the penalty of the law instead of sinners ;" 
p. 198. " There is not one text in the 
Bible that says Christ fulfilled the law 
for us -J ^ p. 202. And in attempting to 
prove that mankind should not ask bless- 
ings and mercies for Christ's sake, he says : 
" There is no account in the Scripture of 
any of the Prophets or Apostles asking 
any blessings for Christ's sake ;" p. 217. 
On p. 214 he advances the position that 
man obtains " salvation hy innocence and 
good worlisP A thousand such extracts 
might be made from the writings of this 
sect, but the above will suffice. 

Now I appeal to the reader whether 
my reasoning from the facts be not fair 
and logical argumentation. Mr. C. has 
made no attempt to reply to it, though 
he has poured forth a whole flood of 
scurrility upon me for reasoning thus. 
L it this will not do. I adduce these 
€ vtracts to prove that Mr. C.'s sect is 
Unitarian, and that they fellowship with 
persons entertaining these atrocious doc- 
trines, while at the same time they de- 
nounce all evangelical churches. Do 
not these extracts prove this point? 



The sentiments of Kinkade, as above 
expressed, may be found substantially in 
the writings of Clough, Plummer, Pea- 
vey, and other leaders of this sect. And 
in addition to the positive evidence of the 
[Jnitarianism of the Campbellites, I may 
state that I have heard a distinguished 
and popular preacher of their's ridicule 
the doctrine of the Trinity, (in a public 
discourse upon the subject,) in a most 
brutal and blasphemous manner. 

I am aware that this sect will attempt 
to repel the charge of Unitarianism^ 
(equivocating on the word, merely be- 
cause they do not recognize it as their 
distinguishing appellation,) and attempt 
to lull suspicion, by producing from their 
writings passages in which they speak 
of Christ as God, Divine, &c. They 
equivocate exceedingly on these words. 
But evidence derived from such general 
statements proves nothing; for the most 
avowed Unitarians, and even Polish Soci- 
nians, do not hesitate to speak of Christ 
in precisely a similar manner. Not to 
multiply instances, however, we shall 
specify Kinkade,. the author of the fore- 
quoted " Bible Doctrine J^ Though he 
denies so expressly the doctrine of the 
Trinity, the personality of the Spirit, the 
self-existence and atonement of Christ, 
and the immensity of God, yet hear him 
how he can equivocate: "God is the 
highest title given to Christ in the Scrip- 
tures;" p. 99 and 101. On p. 116, he 
says, "Acts 20: 28 only proves that 
Christ is called God, and that the Church 
belongs to him, 7ieither of ivhich is de- 
nied by any Christian preacher'^'' i, e. 
the preachers of this Unitarian sect, who 
call themselves, for distinction's sake, 
" Christians^ Again : " / conscientious- 
ly call him my Lord and my God, and 
yet I firmly believe that he is a created 
being f p. 118. "As I have already 
proved that the title God is frequently 
given to creatures, it is evident that he 
could be the mighty God, and yet be a 
subordinate being;" p. 119. "It is very 
possible for him to be equal to God in 
some things, and at the same thime infe- 
rior to him in some other things ;" p. 107. 
These passages may serve to put the un- 
wary on their guard, and prevent thei-r 
being entrapped by the equivocal phrase- 
ology of a disguised Unitarian. 

Thus, therefore, do they denounce 



AND REFUTED. 



95 



Trinitarians, and fellowship with the 
most notorious Unitarians. And even 
Universalists do not appear to find much 
fault with their doctrine; judging from 
such passages as the following extract 
from a letter, in which the account of a 
Campbellite protracted meeting is given. 
Near the close of the meeting, the Uni- 
versalist preacher in the place, (Mentor, 
Ohio,) in "a truly Christian manner" 
expressed his concurrence in what had 
been said and done. The following are 
the writer's own w^ords : " On Saturday 
eve the Universalian preacher of the place 
rose up after the discourse, and, i7i a truly 
Christian manner, expressed his concur- 
rence with the leading truths exhibited 
by us;' &c. Har. 1839, p. 229. And 
what renders it very strange is, the Uni- 
versalist preacher did this soon after the 
Campbellite preacher had been preach- 
ing on Universalism. 

Mr. Campbell has charged m.e with 
caricaturing his system, and with being 
actuated by prejudice, &c. <fcc. These 
accusations are brought simply for ef- 
fect ; for Mr. C. knew that they were 
false when he uttered them. Nor can 
he show that in one single instance I 
have misrepresented him. I have qu?)ted 
him fairly and fully, and have kept back 
nothing by which his view^s could be ex- 
pressed or elucidated. But this assertion 
of Mr. C. renders it necessary for me to 
appeal to a few others who have taken 
occasion to refer to this sect. And with 
this appeal I shall close the chapter. 

5. The vieios entertained of the Camp- 
bellite sect, by evangelical denominations 
in their vicinity and elseivhere. 

Our Baptist brethren speak of Mr. 
Campbell and his followers, thus : " We 
perceive that one or two churches have 
been, for a time, annoyed by the doctrines 
of Mr. Campbell. The writings of Mr. 
Campbell authorize us to say, that he 
teaches many things contrary to the 
Word of God, and fatal to the salvation 
of men. He degrades the exercises of 
the heart, and ascribes to externals an 
undue importance ; he expressly denies 
that the term ' sanctification' is ' expres- 
sive of any quality of mind, or any per- 
sonal attribute of body, soul, or spirit' — 
and declares it to signify only ' a state or 
condition' — by which he means a relative 
change, as opposed to an actual and per- 



sonal change ; he makes this change to 

be the result of an external, bodily act, 
and this act to be baptism ; he declares 
that regeneration, or the new birth, and 
baptism, are the same thing. With re- 
gard to the operations of the Holy 
Ghost, his writings are full of studied 
ambiguity, but yet enough can be detect- 
ed of his meaning to warrant the asser- 
tion that he admits the influence of the 
Spirit of God in convincing men, only, 
as contained or embodied in the Bible, 
just as the spirit of any author is breath- 
ed in his writings, and denies thus the ac- 
tual personal operations of the Holy 
Ghost. We might enumerate errors of 
this kind, but these are enough." See 
the corresponding letter for 1839, in the 
minutes of the Savannah River Baptist 
Association. 

The Rev. Dr. Brantley, in the " Reli- 
gious Narrator" of Jan. 1834, speaking 
of this sect, says : " They deny any re- 
generation other than baptism, generally 
adopt a new version of the New Testa- 
ment, and make very little use of the Old 
Testament. Being a very confident, as- 
suming, and self-sufficient people, they 
boldly and clamorously condemn the 
opinions of all those who maintain the 
necessity of the Spirit's influence in re- 
generation, and who decline the observ- 
ance of their pretended apostolic order. 
To make Christians according to their 
views, it is only requisite to convince the 
reason of men, of the truth of the Chris- 
tian religion, and then regenerate them 
by immersion in water." &c. 

So also, Mr. A. Crocker, of Brook- 
ville New York, in the " Christian Pal- 
ladium" of Dec. 1834, says: "I have 
clearly appreciated the strength and weak- 
ness of Mr. Campbell's system of pre- 
tended ancient Gospel. As I supposed 
in the onset, there must be a capital er- 
ror either in his doctrine, or in the un- 
derstanding which he has given to the 
world of it, from the knowledge of the 
fact that it has been exerting a bad in- 
fluence on the minds and lives of those 
who have embraced it in the circle of my 
acquaintance" This is sustained also by 
the venerable Dr. Cleland of Kentucky, 
who remarking upon the character of 
this sect, says : " Indeed it is very doubt- 
ful, and much questioned, whether the 
author ^of this scheme himself knows 



96 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED 



any thing about scriptural, evangelical 
experience. Many of the re-formed, as 
they are called, really appear ' the worse 
for mending'— more de-fovmed than be- 
fore. Humility and meekness are not 
the family features of this sect. Charity 
and candor are not found in the moral 
laboratory of their champion and leader. 
Bold denunciations, intolerant proscrip- 
tion, bitter invectives, sectarian jealousy, 
and persecution, impudent bullying and 
insignificant gasconade, appear general- 
ly to characterize these deformers, espe- 
cially the heads and leaders of the party. 
They glory in schism, in making divi- 
sions, and in breaking the doors of 
churches by forcible entry. The family 
altar, the Sabbath day, the Sunday School, 
and the associations for benevolent and 
charitable objects, find little countenance, 
— yea, rather, a most open, undisguised 
hostility to all these objects, is manifested 
throughout the connexion, with very few 
exceptions. The public voice will 

FULLY SUBSTANTIATE THIS STATEMENT. 

A more violent, censorious, vindictive, 
sectarian party, is not known in ail the 
land. Many graceless creatures, without 
repentance, without faith, without reli- 
gious experience, being told it was the 
light way, have rushed into the water to 
bury their sins and cleanse their con- 
sciences. But instead of being purged 
from their old sins, they are more con- 
spicuously and prominently irreligious 
than they were before." Strictures on 
Campbellism, p. 55. These statements 
are from one of the most venerable, and 
venerated Presbyterian ministers in all 
the West. The Rev. Mr. Tucker, also, 
of the Baptist Church, after having visi- 
ted some portions of the land where 
Campbellism prevails, says : " I have 
been visiting some southern sections of 
the country, where the deplorable effects 
of Campbellism made my heart bleed,— 
whole churches were broken up, and ut- 
ter ruin and devastation has followed the 
introduction of Mr. C.'s pernicious views 
and doctrines. I am not afraid to put my 
hand on Alexander Campbell, and the 
cause he advocates, and on all his infatu- 
ated followers, and pronounce them the 
works of the Devil." Mr. T. was past- 
or of the Baptist Church in Buffalo, N. 
York. 

Even the mild, and compromising Mr. 



Broaddus, of the Baptist Church, who is 
more disposed to favor Mr. C.'s errors, 
than most of his ministerial brethren, re- 
marks in the " Richmond Herald" of 
Dec. 14, 1832, that " Through the people 
called Reformers we found ourselves vir- 
tually connected with the Unitarians 
and Arians of the West, who deny the 
divinity of our Redeemer ; for have they 
not there agreed to become one people?" 
And in a letter to Mr. C. published in the 
Har. for 1840, p. 556, Mr. B. thus speaks: 
" There must be some truths which are 
vital and fundamental. Among these, 
you and I both reckon that great truth, — 
atonement, or expiation hy the blood of 
Christ. Now I find in your discussion 
with a venerable correspondent, you 
have to remind him (M. H. for October, 
page 472, 473,) that he has forgotten to 
state this among the designs of Christ's 
death ! /" Yet it is of this very " corres- 
pondent" (B. W. Stone,) that Mr. C. thus 
speaks : " I will only add that I have ad- 



dressed, not long since, our amiable, 



learned, and greatly venerated Elder 
B. W. Stone, who has propounded this 
question, (tvhat is a Unitarian?) on this 
subject," &c. " I therefore, most re- 
spectfully and afTectionately solicit from 
him an essay on sin, and sin-offerings," 
&c. Har. for 1840, p. 83. And "A 
calm, discreet, affectionate, fraternal, and 
unimpassioned discussion of the terms 
' sin,' ' sin-offering,' ' expiation,' ' Redeem- 
er,' j&c. &c., would tend very much to 
the edification of the brethren, and to a 
more perfect union of all the elements of 
modern partyism, which have been asso- 
ciated under the banners of Reforma- 
tion,^' p. 82. It is of this same " greatly 
venerated Elder" of Mr. C. that Dr. 
Cleland remarks: "It is well known, 
through all the land, that B. W. Stone is 
a Unitarian of the Arian class ; that he 
rejects the doctrine of the proper divini- 
ty of Christ, and his sacrifice as a real 
atonevient for sinP See Strictures, p. 49. 
Hence it is no wonder Mr. Broaddus en- 
quires of Mr. C. with astonishment, 
" How could we recognize members — 
not to say ministers, who leave out of 
their building this corner stone?" Har. 
1840, p. 256. But in his reply to Mr. 
B., Mr. C. apologises for his aged 
" brother Stone," by saying / view it as 
an oversight, rather than an intentional 



AND REFUTED. 



m 



omission, that he left out the expiatory f 
designs of Messiah's deaths p. 559. He 
views it "as an oversight" also, no doubt, 
that Priestly, Belsham, Clough, &c., 
have left it out likewise ! Can there be 
more egregious trifling on any subject ? 
In exact accordance with the foregoing 
representations. Dr. Obadiah Jennings, 
in the account of his Debate with Mr. C. 
says, "Among this latter class (the 
Campbellites,) / asserted and still do 
assert, without fear of contradiction, are 
found not only avowed Arians, but most 
of the infidels and semi-infidels or free 
thinkers of our country. Hence it was 
alleged (by Dr. J. during the debate,) that 
whilst Mr. C. levelled all his shafts 
against the Evangelical churches, and 
christians of the present day, with the 
classes of society just described ; he 
could fraternize, and with that particular 
class who had assumed the semblance of 
an ecclesiastical community, he and his 
followers could, and did actually hold 
fellowship in religious worship and ordi- 
nances — whilst Mr. C. did not, because 
he could not deny this fact without con- 
tradicting some of his own statements,'^ 
&c. Debate p. 81, 82. Dr. Jennings 
asserts also that the Mormon delusion in 
part, sprung from Campbellism — See 
Debate p. 88,) in which he is abundantly 
sustained even by the Campbellites them- 
selves. As, for example, in the Har. of 
1840, p. 228, a correspondent address- 
ing Mr. C. says, "You know how we 
have been beset and despoiled by that de- 
mon — Mormonism.'* And another cor- 
respondent of the Har. for 1839, says, 
" If the Editor had said that some fanat- 
ics from among the sect called Campbell- 
ites were converted to Mormonism, he 
would have told the truth." These as- 
sertions are also sustained by the Na- 
tional Mgis, Peoria, 111., July, 1839, 
which remarks as follows : " Soon after 
the Mormon Bible was published, a sect 
of fanatics from Ohio, called Campbell- 
ites, passed through New York, and 
heard of the golden plates. They called 
upon Smith, and many of them were 
converted to his faith. With them was 
Sidney Bigelow, who was a man of el- 
oquence and great popularity among 
them." It is to this statement that the 
latter of the above correspondents of Mr. 
C. refers. In fact, the origin of Mor- 
13 



monism, from the speculations of Mr. C. 
is just what might be expected. 

The following is from a little work 
called " Campbellism Unmasked,'' New 
York, 1836. The writer says, " Having 
proved in Ohio that your religion is noth- 
ing less than Infidelity dressed in the 
garments of Christianity," &c., p. 3. — 
"Now let us examine this patchwork, 
this reformed religion, as they call it. It 
is a piece of Popery, a piece of Calvin- 
ism, a piece of Arminianism, a piece of 
Baptistism, a piece of Presbyterianism, a 
piece of apostolic order ; but to this it 
presents an awful caricature. You per- 
ceive it suits every man's taste." pp. 21, 
22. "Having now given you a superfi- 
cial view of this new system of Infidelity, 
dressed up in the apparel of Christianity, 
with the seducing names of 'Ancient 
Gospel,' * Apostolic Order,' * Reformers,' 
'Churches of Christ,' 'Kingdom of 
Christ,' &c., (a system which I pro- 
nounce to be as derogatory to the char- 
acter of the Living God, and insulting to 
the honor and work of the Lord Jesus, as 
it is dangerous and imposing,) I will con- 
clude," &c., pp. 32, 33. 

Another writer. Rev. Samuel L. Tut- 
tle, remarks on the subject as follows : 
" Within a few years a new sect has 
sprung up in our l^ind, holding forth some 
pestilential and deadly doctrines, particu- 
larly calculated to delude the simple and 
to lead men down to death. The errors 
of this system are inculcated in so spe- 
cious a style, and so modified to suit cir- 
cumstances, that very many honest per- 
sons are deceived as to the real doctrines 
of the sect, and many pious people think 
that upon the whole, the great outcry 
made against Campbellism is useless, if 
not absolutely wrong. 

" Having had an opportunity to wit 
ness the exhibition of their doctrines and 
the tendencies of their doctrines, in a 
field where they were not trammelled by 
a venerable and preservative orthodoxy 
as in the Eastern States, I cannot bu^ 
dread the system as one of the most cun 
ningly devised schemes of the adversary 
to injure the cause of Christ and ruin 
souls. Let a person travel in the West 
ern States, and most especially in Ken 
tucky, and he will be led to adopt the 
language of one of our most efficient 
missionaries in the western field, ' Camp 



98 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED 



bellism is the great curse of the West.^ " 
N. YorkEvang., Oct. 12, 1843. 

Another writer, referring to the same 
system, remarks : " This is not the Gos- 
pel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
Christ. It is another Gospel — a doctrine 
of devils, dressed up in some tattered 
fragments of the garb of true religion. 
Its tendency is to deceive and to destroy." 
See ibid, Nov. 10, 1843. 

These passages I would willingly 
have spared, had not Mr. C. rendered it 
necessary for me to refer to them. And 
surely no one can suppose, that so many 
and so reputable witnesses would have 
asserted these things without reason. 
Why should they? Yet in these denun- 
ciations the writers do not include every 
individual of the sect. They except 
some worthy individuals who, " although 
of the sect, are blind to the depths of the 
system, and not aware of its blasphe- 
mies." See "Campbellism Unmasked," 
p. 23. 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE TRANSLATION OF THE NEV^T TESTA- 
MENT USED BY THE CAMPBELLITES. 

It was not without reason that our 
great English moralist observed: "I do 
not know any crime so great, that a man 
could contrive to commit, as poisoning 
the sources of eternal truth."* It is a 
crime, the extent of whose turpitude, can 
only be imagined amid the realities of 
eternity ; and no instrument employed by 
Satan for the destruction of souls is so 
ruinous in its effects. 

A number of years ago, Mr. Camp- 
bell issued a version of the New Testa- 
ment with the following imposing title: 
" The sacred writings of the Apostles 
and Evangelists of Jesus Christ, com- 
monly styled the New Testament, trans- 
lated from the original Greek, by George 
Campbell, James Macknight and Phil- 
lip Doddirdge, Doctors of the Church 
of Scotland" It has passed through 
several editions. The one principally 
referred to in the following review, is 
" stereotyped from the third edition re- 

* See Boswell's History of Johnson's Tour to the 
Hebrides, p. 28. 



vised. Bethany, Brooke Co., Va. Print' 
ed and published by A. Campbell^ 1833." 
Copy-right secured. We shall occa- 
sionally also refer to the 2nd edition, 
published in 1828 ; but when this is done 
we shall carefully distinguish them, in 
order to avoid doing Mr. C. any injustice. 

This version, corrupt and deceptive as 
it is, has had a very extensive circulation 
among the Campbellites and Unitarians ; 
and the comparative silence of evangel- 
ical Christians respecting it, has embol- 
dened Mr. C. to denounce our own 
excellent version, until, in multitudes of 
instances, all confidence in it has been 
abandoned. His Harbinger is full of 
direct challenges to discuss the claims of 
his translation, and he boasts that it is 
"incomparably superior" to any other 
English version. We shall refer to some 
of these boasts and challenges presently. 

We shall not attempt to influence the 
minds of our readers, by here declaring 
the sentiments which this production has 
led us to entertain of its author ; but 
shall merely give a brief statement of 
facts in relation to it, that every one who 
feels an interest in the subject may judge 
for himself 

It was not until Mr, C. had published 
several large editions of this book, that 
he would consent to change the title 
page, declaring Dr. Doddridge to be a 
member of the Church of Scotland. But 
the first and second editions were issued 
with this title; and it was not until he 
had realized a very large sale of his 
book, (a sale of 4000 copies,) that he 
would correct the title page itself in this 
respect. This he did in the third edition. 
But the second edition, (though in it he 
declares that he had learned that Dr. D. 
" was not a Presbyterian, but a Congre- 
gationalist,"*) still asserts on the title 
page that Dr. D. is a " Doctor of the 
Charch of Scotland." That this fact 
had an important bearing, both upon the 
matter of the translation, and the success 
of the undertaking, will appear, when it 
is remembered that, after Mr. C. had 
proclaimed Dr. Doddridge to be a Pres- 
byterian, he cites him as an important 
and weighty authority, (and one, of 

* In the Biblical Repository of July, 1840, 1 have 
fully exposed Mr. C.'s duplicity respecting this matter. 
See also the admirable "Debate" of Dr. Jennings on 
the same subject, p. 132 — 149. 



AND REFUTED 



99 



course, whose candor had got the better 
of his Presbyterian principles,) to sustain 
the rendering which his book gives of 
ixx'KTj^taj viz. " congregation" instead of 
that given in the common translation. 
Respecting this affair, Mr. C. can never 
satisfactorily exculpate himself from the 
charge of dissimulation. But we pro- 
ceed to examine the work itself 

In order to give a fair and impartial 
view of the matter, it will be proper first 
to present the author's own opinion of 
his book. The following passage is 
from the Preface: "If the mere publica- 
tion of a version of the inspired writings 
requires, as we believe it does, the pub- 
lisher to have no sectarian object in view, 
we are happj in being able to appeal to 
our whole course of public addresses on 
religious subjects, to show that we have 
no such object in view." What is to be 
thought of this, coming as it does, from 
the most violent and proscriptive secta- 
rian in America. 

But let us for a moment turn our 
attention to the second edition alone. 
The reader has been informed by the 
title of this book, that Mr. C. pledges his 
veracity and honesty that it was "trans- 
lated from the original Greek, by Drs. 
Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge." 
Let him compare this now with the fol- 
lowing from p. 396 : " We give no Bap- 
tist authorities. But we rest the lohole 
authority of this translation on the criti- 
cisms of RomanistSy Episcopalians, and 
Presbyterians;" and he will surely be 
led to ask, what concern " Roman and 
Episcopal authorities" have in sustaining 
the propriety of a translation made, as 
the title informs us, by three " Doctors of 
the Church of Scotland?" And on p. 
448, same edition, he says : " From a 
great many sources, and from religious 
teachers of different denominations, in- 
quiries, suggestions, and criticisms have 
been received ; all directly or indirectly 
bearing upon the improvement of the 
new version. From these — and from 
our diligent comparison and examination 
of a.11 the documents furnished, and 
within our reach, we have been induced 
to modernize the style of this version 
very considerably," — and still retaining 
the original title page, ascribing the 
translation to three " Doctors of the 
Church ofScotlandP The reader shall 



' have some specimens of this " modern 
izing" presently. And though Mr. C 
has, in his later editions, corrected the 
title page in reference to the ecclesias 
tical standing of Doddridge, he still 
affirms that the translation, {which is 
simply and singly his oion, so far as 
authority is concerned,) is the production 
of " Drs. Campbell, Macknight, and 
Doddridge." And thinks to justify the 
iniquitous procedure of representing them 
as yielding to the Socinian expositions of 
such texts as Acts 20: 28, 1 Tim. 3: 16, 
&c. by the most peurile and contemptible 
artifice of adding to the title page, the 
words, '■'■with various emendations." Nor 
is there in the whole compass of his 
'•'■ fourth edition^ stereotyped from the 
third" the least notice by which the 
reader can learn any thing, other than 
that Drs. Doddridge, Campbell, and Mac- 
knight, are fully in favor of Mr. C.'s 
atrocious Socinian mutilations of the word 
of God. To these we shall refer pre- 
sently. But it is scarcely possible to 
speak of such a procedure in language 
sufficiently strong. 

But hear Mr. C. again in commenda- 
tion of his version : " Taking every thing 
into view, we have no hesitation in saying, 
that in the present improved state of the 
English language, the ideas communi- 
cated by the Apostles and Evangelists 
of Jesus Christ, are incomparably better 
expressed in this, than in any volume 
ever presented in our mother tongue." 
And again he remarks, (the truth of 
which I think no one can possibly ques- 
tion,) that " We would only say, that the 
edification and comfort of a Christian 
may be greatly promoted by a minute 
examination of this version, and a dili- 
gent comparison of it with the common 
one." And he ought to have added, that 
any one, who, after such an examination, 
would prefer this version to the " com- 
mon one," must be destitute alike of taste 
and all true piety. 

The following are additional profes- 
sions of Mr. Campbell, in regard to the 
faithfulness of his labors: "It may so 
happen that, now and then, once or 
twice in an hundred years, an individual 
or two may arise, whose literary acquire- 
ments, whose genius, independence of 
mind, honesty, and candor, may fit them 
to be faithful and competent translators." 



100 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED 



See preface, p. 8. Now, as Mr. Camp- 
bell is the translator of this book, and as, 
on his own showing, these are the quali- 
fications of translators, he must of course 
possess them all, and cannot plead ex- 
emption from censure as to the merits of 
his performance, on the score of igno- 
rance. 

The reader will bear in mind while he 
reads the following, that the preface still 
claims the "three doctors" as authors of 
the translation. We quote from the ste- 
reotype edition. " The present edition, 
shows that in the judgment of some at 
least, the style of the whole volume, even 
of the historical books, was susceptible 
of some improvement," "Macknight 
presented more work for the pen of a re- 
viser than Campbell, and Doddridge more 
than either," Preface, p. 70. 

After professions like the following, 
what should we not be led to look for on 
the score of correctness ? " Few read- 
ers," says he " can appreciate the labor 
and care necessary to the perfecting of 
an impression of the New Testament. — 
Aware of all the difficulties in our way, 
and most solicitous to have the stereotype 
pocket edition (the one from which we 
now quote, and to which we shall con- 
fine our attention through the remainder 
of this investigation) of this work as per- 
fect in its typography as any in existence^ 
we have been at the labor and expense 
of preparing two editions at one and the 
same time ; so that any errata discovered 
after the sheets of the third edition were 
worked off, might be corrected in the 
standing form of the pocket edition. Few, 
very few errors have been discovered in 
the third edition ; these are corrected in 
its errata, and of course, do not appear in 
thisP '• The sheets of the third edition, 
after having been repeatedly read by my- 
self and others, were submitted to the ex- 
amination of Thomas Campbell, sen., 
and of Francis W. Emmons, Their 
classical and biblical attainments have 
been of much service to us, and to the 
public in the completion of this work, 
pp. 74, 75. 

Once more: "This edition being the 
ultimatum of our critical labors, in com- 
paring, reviewing, and reconsidering our 
own disquisitions, as well as those of ma- 
ny others, living and dead; after a full 
review of the third edition, or Family 



Testament, while the whole subject was 
fresh in our recollection, with all the ana- 
logies, parallelisms, and peculiarities of 
the eight authors of the New Testament 
in full view, exhibits, as Ave humbly con- 
ceive, a correct and perspicuous transla- 
tion of the sacred writings of the New 
Institution, in a style so modernized, and 
yet so simple, exact and faithful to the 
original, as to render it more intelligible 
than any version in our language," Mr. 
Campbell, is determined not to submit to 
the inconvenience of waiting, as other 
authors are compelled to do, till the tardy 
public utter forth their praises of his pro- 
ductions. He will acknowledge obliga- 
[ tion to no one in this respect. The fol- 
lowing is the conclusion of the para- 
graph, from which the last quotation is 
made : "To vindicate and sustain the fi- 
delity of this version to the original, now 
in its most approved form, and its superi- 
or accuracy, we feel ourselves fully com- 
petent; and therefore, do not hesitate in 
placing it in the stereotype form," 

A full year after uttering this language, 
we find this passage from under his 
hand, in the Millenial Harbinger, Vol. 
5, p. 154 : "I am glad to perceive the at- 
tention which the New Version is re- 
ceiving from all denominations, and if 
the Lord preserve my life, I hope to be 
able to defend it in all capital matters, 
against each and every assault, from any 
pen or tongue on this Continent^ See 
also, p. 174: "Who will undertake to 
show that the New Version is not to be 
depended on?" But we must cease 
making quotations. 

We had thought of dwelling upon the 
translation of particular words, as e. g. 
ixx'k'^cia, which he makes the " three doc- 
tors" uniformly render congregation, and. 
the word Banti^io, which he makes them 
mostly render immerse, even in passages 
where they are known to regard such 
renderings absurd, as in 1 Cor. 10: 2. — 
But there are so many things in this 
translation that require notice, that we are 
under the necessity of omitting any fur- 
ther remarks on these. For bad as they 
are, they are nothing in comparison with 
what is yet to be exhibited. 

Incredible as it may appear, Mr. 
Campbell, even while pronouncing this 
work to be the translation of Drs. Mack- 
night, Poddridge, and Campbell, was 



AND REFUTED. 



m 



mutilating" the text, and even leaving* out 
hundreds of passages which they regard- 
ed as inspired. The following are a few 
specimens, in which he has omitted 
words, phrases, and sometimes whole 
verses. He omits the following : Matt. 
6. 13, "For thine is the kingdom, and 
the power, and the glory, forever, amen." 
In 9: 13, he omits the words '-to repent- 
ance." In 12: 35, the words "of the 
heart." In 14: 22, " Jesus," and also 25. 
In 18 : 29, " at his feet and ;" and in v. 
35, "their trespasses." In 20, "idle," 
20: 22, "And to be baptized with the 
baptism that lam baptized with." 26: 
9, "Ointment." In 27: 35, he omits the 
following entire passage : " That it might 
be fulfilled which was spoken by the 
Prophet : They parted my garments 
among them, and upon my vesture did 
they cast lots." In 28: 19, " Therefore." 
In Mark's Gospel, among other passa- 
ges, he omits the following : 2 : 17, " to 
repentance." 3: 5, "whole as the oth- 
er." 4: 24, "Unto you that hear shall 
more be given." In 6: 11, he leaves 
out the following : " Verily I say unto 
you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom 
and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, 
than for that city." 7: 2, "they found 
fault." In 11; 14, 15, "Jesus" is twice 
omitted. 12: 27, "God." 13: 14, 
" spoken of by Daniel the prophet." 14: 
22, " eat." 

In Luke's Gospel, the following are 
omitted, 4: 18, " He hath sent me to heal 
the broken-hearted." v. 41, " Christ." 9: 
66, " For the Son of man is not come to 
destroy men's lives, but to save." 11: 2, 
4, the following words and phrases : 
" Our who art in heaven thy 



will be done as in heaven so in earth- 
but deliver us from evil," v. 29, "the 
prophet," V. 44, " scribes and pharisees, 
hypocrites." 24: 29, "Jerusalem." In 
John's Gospel, the following: 1 : 43, "Je- 
sus." 5: 38, "the Father." 6: 58, " the 
manna." 8: 20, "Jesus." 8: 59, "going 
through the midst of them, and so pass- 
ed by." In Acts 2: 30, he omits, " ac- 
cording to the flesh he would raise up 
Christ." 8: 37, "And Philip said, if 
thou believest with all thy heart thou 
mayest ; and he answered and said, I be- 
lieve that Jesus Christ is the Son of 
God." 10: 6, "He shall tell thee what 
thou oughtest to do." 10: 21, " which 



were sent to him from Cornelius." 19: 
10, "Jesus." 23: 9, "Let us not fight 
against God." 

In Romans, 1: 16, of " Christ." 11, 
6, " But if it be of works, it is no more 
of gi-ace ; otherwise work is no more 
work." 13: 9, "Thou shalt not bear 
false witness." 1 Cor. 6: 20, "and in 
your spirits which are God's." 7: 39, 
"by the law." 11: 24, "Take eat." 
Gal. 3: 1, " That ye should not obey 
the truth." Phillipians, 3: 21, "That it 
may be fashioned." Colossians, 1: 14, 
" Through his blood." 1: 28, "Jesus." 
1 Tim. 2: 7, " In Christ." 3: 3, " not 
greedy of filthy lucre." 4: 12 "in spir- 
it." Hebrews, 10: 9, " God." 11: 

13, "And were persuaded of them.'* 
1 Peter, 1: 23, "forever." 1 John, 4: 
3, "Christ came in the flesh." Rev. 1: 
8, "the beginning and the ending." 5: 

14, "Him that liveth forever and ever." 
In the foregoing omissions, I find that 

Mr. Campbell has strictly followed in the 
steps of the Unitarian editors of the " /wi- 
proved Version,'''' He has even been 
bolder than they ; for in a number of in- 
stances, the clauses which they enclosed 
in brackets, (thereby intimating that th^re 
was not a suflScient proof of their spu- 
riousness,) he has had the hardihood to 
omit altogether. We cannot trust our- 
selves to speak the sentiments we enter- 
tain of such atrocious treatment of the 
word of God. 

Out of all the foregoing passages, Drs. 
Campbell, Doddridge, and Macknight, 
have not omitted a single word or 'phrase 
in their version of the New Testament, 
and yet Mr. Campbell omits them all, 
and not less than five or six hundred oj 
others^ and still pledges himself that the 
version which he oflers to the public is 
by "Drs. Campbell, Macknight and Dod- 
dridge ! " 

But this is not the worst of it. He 
has even left out of their version, as he 
calls it, passages, for the genuineness of 
which they strenuously contended. Take 
a single specimen. In Rev. 1: 11, (and 
it will be recollected that Dr. Doddridge 
was the only one of the three doctors 
who translated the Revelation,) Mr. 
Campbell omits, " I am Alpha and Ome- 
ga, the first and the last." It is on this 
clause that Dr. Doddridge has the follow- 
ing note: " I cannot forbear recording it, 



102 



CAMPBELLIdM EXAMINED, 



that this text has do7ie more than any 
other in the Bible, toward preventing me 
from giving up to that scheme, which 
makes our Lord- Jesus-Christ no more 
than a deified creaturey Yet does Mr. 
Campbell make the reader believe that 
this very text is omitted by Doddridge. 
The same thing is true in relation to pas- 
sages contended for by the other transla- 
tors; by Macknight for example, in 1 
Cor. 10: 28, &c. 

I have myself examin-ed and compared 
with Griesbach, upwards of three hun- 
dred passages from which Mr. Campbell 
has omitted words, phrases, and texts, 
nor have I examined, by many hundreds, 
all the passages. The reader will be 
satisfied of this when I inform him, that 
Mr. Campbell, in the controversy with a 
"Friend of Truth," was compelled to 
admit that he had altered the language of 
Drs. Campbell, Macknight, and Dodd- 
ridge, in the translation, about three thou- 
sand times. And the Rev. Mr. Jamie- 
son, before spoken of, states that, upon 
comparing together the first and second 
edition of this pretended translation, as 
far only as Matthew's and Mark's Gos- 
pel's he found in this short compass up- 
wards of six hundred alterations in phra- 
seology, and upwards of one hundred in 
doctrine. 

But what is the conclusion to which 
an unsuspecting reader must be led, who 
confides in the declaration of Mr. Camp- 
bell ? One would imagine that no book 
was ever issued with more scrupulous 
care bestowed upon it in order to have it 
correct. And yet I venture to afiirm 
that there never has been a work stereo- 
typed with half the glaring evidences of 
carelessness, that are to be found in this. 
I will specify a few instances. In his 
appendix, Mr. Campbell, after Griesbach, 
pronounces the phrase '■'-And he followeth 
not loith us^'' in Mark 9: 38, to be spuri- 
ous ; and tells us that it is " rejected from 
this improved version;" and yet by turn- 
ing to his text we find it still there ! So 
little has been the care with which he 
has prepared this work, that he has not 
even compared his list of "spurious read- 
ings" with the text. He also professes 
to omit the words, " And turning to his 
disciples he said," from Luke 10: 23, 
pronouncing them, in like manner, to be 
spurious ; and telling us in the appendix 



that he has rejected them from the text: 
but, on turning to the text, we find them 
still there! The word ^'-you^"' in Colos^ 
1: 10, he, after Griesbach, pronounces to 
be spurious, and says that he has rejected 
it from his version ; but, on turning hack, 
we find it still there ! So shameful has 
been his negligence, while professing to 
correct the word of eternal life, that he 
has not only not troubled himself to com- 
pare his spurious readings with the text 
itself, but has made up his appendix by 
just running over the margin of Gries- 
bach's text and Collecting the readings 
whic?i he denominates spurious. In this 
way he has pronounced many readings 
spurious which are still in his text. 

He has followed Griesbach so impli- 
citly in this respect, as even to copy his 
references ; e. g. in his appendix he tells 
us, after Griesbach, that the word "Jesus" 
is left out of John 1 : 44, when that word 
was never in the verse. 

Thus without even consulting his text 
he followed Griesbach in numbering his 
verses. See his Testament on John 9 : 
28, also, with appendix. We have not 
room to specify every instance of this 
grievous negligence, but the following is 
too glaring to be passed over. From 
Phil. 3: 16, he omits the words "Let us 
walk by the same rule, let us mind the 
same thing," and he also declares that 
he has from the same verse rejected the 
following clause : " In order that it may," 
when such a clause was never in the text. 
These astounding disclosures, show that, 
notwithstanding all his professions to the 
contrary, he has not even been at the 
pains to give his book a cursory perusal, 
before issuing it. And remember, reader, 
we copy all these from the fourth edi- 
tion STEREOTYPED.* Such has been the 
care he has taken, while engaged in ex- 
punging from, and adding to, that word 
which is the savor of life unto life, or of 
death unto death, to immortal souls ' 
This is the book of which he says, in 
the preface, "Aware of all the difficulties 
in the way, and most solicitous to have 
the stereotype pocket edition of this 
work as perfect in its typography as any 

* Since the appearance of my T^ssay, Mr. C. has, pro- 
bably, corrected these astoundiii t evidences of a care- 
lessness, which is as culpable as it is horrible. This 
can, however, in no sense relieve him from the force of 
the foregoing statements, as contrasted with his high 
pretensions of such superior accuracy. 



AND REFUTED, 



103 



in existence, we have been at the labor 
and expense of preparing two editions at 
the same time, so that any errata, after 
the sheets of the third edition were work- 
ed off, might be corrected in the stand- 
ing form of the pocket edition," etc. 
Here, reader, are the naked facts of the 
case. 

As Mr. Campbell professes to rely 
upon Griesbach as his chief authority for 
omitting the foregoing words and phra- 
ses from his texts, (which profession is, 
however, most untrue, for he goes furth- 
er not only than Griesbach, but even 
than the editors of the Unitarian " Im- 
proved Version," in rejecting passages ; 
and he also refuses to admit passages 
which Griesbach has inserted,) it may be 
desired by some who have not the means 
fully to investigate this subject, though 
most interested in it ; that the Christian 
public should be acquainted with the cha- 
racter of this favorite authority of Mr. 
Campbell. No one can entertain a high- 
er respect for Griesbach's talents and 
learning than myself, yet notwithstand- 
ing a few remarks in his preface to Vol. 
II. of his critical edition of the Greek 
Testament, Unitarians, as Dr. Brownlee 
remarks, do claim him. 

The reader, however, will judge from 
the following, with what sentiments a se- 
rious Christian ought to regard this gen- 
tleman's claim to be a follower of Christ. 
De Wette, a famous professor of neology 
in the University of Berlin, maintains 
that the Pentateuch was composed about 
the time of the captivity ; that the Jew- 
ish Ritual was of gradual formation^ 
accessions being made to it by supersti- 
tion; and that the Book of Chronicles^ 
{which says he, " Is filled with scraps 
and iiiconsistencies") was foisted into 
the canon by some of the priesthood, who 
wished to exhalt their oicn order. His 
Beitrdge containing these sentiments, 
was published a while before the death 
of Griesbach, and actually came out re- 
commended by him. He says : 

" If you object to the young literary 
adventurer, (De Wette) that he has en- 
deavoured to bring Judaism into disre- 
pute, my answer is, that it is no more 
than Paul himself has labored to do.^^* 
This then is the man whom Mr. Camp- 

* See Stuart's Letters to Channing, p. 146, 147. 



bell has professed to follow in his version. 
Could Paine, or Voltaire, have said 
more, in so few words, against the Bible ? 
That he should not be followed impli- 
citly, will appear, if we consider that 
many of his statements are false ; many 
of his conclusions not supported by their 
premises. In frequent instances, his pre- 
mises lead to conclusions quite the re- 
verse of his own ; while other critics, of 
as high repute as Griesbach, have pub- 
lished critical editions of the Greek Tes- 
tament, in which they approximate much 
nearer the Received Text than he. 

1. The celebrated Nolan, in his Greek 
Vulgate has fully shown that the crite- 
ria, by which Griesbach has made his 
decisions are fundamentally erroneous. 

2. The learned Wakefield pronounces 
Griesbach's testimony respecting a mat- 
ter of fact, to be ^Hnfamously falseV — 
Griesbach asserted that the reading of 
Acts 20: 28, in the Ethiopic version 
was, the "church of the Lord,''^ and it is 
this to which Wakefield refers. Yet, on 
the credit of Griesbach, Mr. Campbell, 
(though professing to give the version of 
Doddridge,) reads it in the same manner. 

3. Dr. Lawrence, who examined this 
subject very profoundly, in a tract enti- 
tled " Remarks on the systematical Clas- 
sification of Manuscripts adopted by 
Griesbach in his edition of the Greek 
Testament," has shown that the general 
principles of that particular classification 
employed by Griesbach, as the ground- 
work of all his critical emendations of 
the Textus Receptus, are most incorrect. 
He illustrates the difference between 
Griesbach's principle of classification 
and his own, by an application of both to 
the disputed text in 1 Tim. 3 : 16, where 
his oivn produces a conclusion precisely 
the reverse of that lohich has been yield- 
ed by Griesbach. Yet Mr. Campbell, 
without any hesitation omits the word 
" God" in that passage on the authority 
of Griesbach. In the same essay. Dr. 
Lawrence has likewise shown that Prof. 
Griesbach's account of facts is frequently 
very erroneous. 

4. But Griesbach is far from being the 
only recent editor of a critical Testa- 
ment, to which the great body of critics 
attach importance. The celebrated Mat- 
thaei, styled by Dr. Middleton " the best 
Greek scholar that ever edited a Greek 



104 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED 



Testament" published a Critical Testa- 
ment in twelve volumes, which approach- 
es much nearer the received text than 
Griesbach, with whom he is at variance. 

The famous Eichhorn, after giving a 
high character of this edition of Matthaei, 
says : '• For a long time I have followed 
the middle pathhetween the two parties." 
The whole system of classifying MSS. 
which lies at the very foundation of 
Griesbach's decision, is rejected by 
Matthaei as entirely worthless. Thus 
agreeing with Mr. Nolan and Dr. Law- 
rence. 

These observations, and numerous 
others of similar import which might be 
made, show how little reason there is for 
attributing so much weight to the deci- 
sions of Griesbach, as is done by many. 
If Mr. CampbelPs statements respecting 
his own acquirements in literature, and 
his qualifications as a translator, are to 
be relied on, he certainly knew better. 

It may be said that many of the pas- 
sages omitted by Mr. Campbell do not 
affect the great leading doctrines of 
Christianity. Be it so ; yet the omission 
of passages which do ?iot affect the vitals 
of Christianity, (when no sufficient rea- 
son is offered for their omission,) affords 
an excuse and thus prepares the way for 
leaving out others that do. One of the 
finest geniuses and most accomplished 
scholars that America has yet seen, has 
well observed: " Only unsettle the popu- 
lar mind as to any one object which it 
has been accustomed to venerate, and the 
perversion of it with regard to many 
others is much facilitated."* 

But many of Mr. Campbell's omis- 
sions do affect the leading doctrines of 
Christianity. For besides the foregoing 
long list of passages, he has omitted a 
great number of others, (not one of 
which is omitted by Drs. Campbell, 
Macknight, and Doddridge,) which go 
to support the doctrine of the Trinity, 
the proper deity of Christ, and the per- 
sonality and deity of the Holy Ghost. 
The following are some of them: 

1. The Trinity. — This doctrine is sup- 
ported by Colos. 2: 2. "To the ac- 
knowledgment of God, (i. e. the Spirit,) 
and of the Father, and of Christ." Mr. 
Campbell invalidates this proof, by omit- 

* See Works of Dr. Mason, Vol. III. p. 260. 



ting the words, " and of the Father, and 
of Christ." He omits also, 1 John 5 : 7, a 
passage which, with the highest defer* 
ence to the gentlemen who have aban- 
doned it, I am bold to say, not only never 
has been proved spurious, but never can 
be, at least on the ground now taken 
against it. It is granted freely, that in 
the very few ancient Greek MSS. that 
now exist, this text has not been found; 
and this is granting all that is demanded, 
so far as regards the premises. But 
what then ? Why — therefore, the text 
is spurious! This conclusion may be 
legitimate; but the connection between 
it and the premises is not obvious to my 
mind. 

2. Mr. Campbell omits also the follow- 
ing proofs of the eternal power and 
Godhead of Christ. 

It is well known that when the New 
Testament writers apply to Christ, from 
the Hebrew Scriptures, the name of Je- 
hovah, they always translate it by Kvptoj, 
Lord^ thereby evincing that Jesus is Jeho- 
vah, as in Matt. 3: 3. Proofs of this 
kind Mr. Campbell has expunged in 
abundance : e. g. Mark 9 : 24 ; 2 Cor. 4 : 
10; 2 Tim. 4: 1. In Matt. 23 : 8, in the 
phrase, " One is your Master, even 
Christ," he omits the words " even 
Christ." From Phil. 4: 13, "I can do 
all things through Christ that strength- 
eneth me," he omits " Christ," and has it 
" I can do all things through him who 
strengthens me." From Colos. 1 : 2, he 
omits the phrase, " The Lord Jesus 
Christ," and thereby invalidates the evi- 
dence that '• grace and peace" come from 
the Lord Jesus Christ, equally as from 
God the Father. In Jude 4, " Denying 
the only Lord God, even our Lord Jesus 
Christ." Knowing that the connective 
must here be rendered by " even," he 
omits the word " God " from the text, 
and thus renders it : " Denying the only 
sovereign Lord, even our Lord Jesus 
Christ." 

He leaves out also the word " God," 
from Acts 20: 28, (loithout giving the 
least notice in his appendix^) though 
Griesbach himself declares that he is not 
by any means satisfied with fully reject- 
ing it. " Feed the Church of God which 
he has purchased with his own blood." 
From Rev. 1: 11, he omits the whole 
clause where Christ says of- himself: " I 



AND REFUTED. 



105 



am Alpha and Omega, the first and the 
last." 

From 1st Tim. 3: 16, he omits the 
word " God." The text reads : " Great 
is the mystery of godliness. God was 
manifest in the flesh." Mr. Campbell 
makes it read, '^ who was manifest in the 
flesh."* In our common version of the 
Bible, 1 Jolm 3 : 16, is thus rendered : 
'• Hereby perceive we the love of God, 
because he laid down his life for us." 
Mr. Campbell has it, "the love of Christ." 
The reader can judge for himself of the 
object of Mr. Campbell in this altera- 
tion. 

Again, though Mr. Campbell is very 
willing to follow Griesbach in rejecting 
proofs of the Deity of Christ, he has not 
had the honesty to follow Griesbach 
where he has inserted new proofs of the 
Diety. As for example, in the follow- 
ing instances: Acts 16: 7, "They as- 
sayed to go into Bithynia, but the spirit 
of Jesus sufl'ered them not." Eph. 5 : 
21, "Submitting yourselves one to an- 
other, in the fear of Christ.''^ Colos. 3: 
15, " Let the peace of Christ rule in 
your hearts^'' etc. These texts, being 
parallel to others m which God is spoken 
of in precisely the same manner as they 
speak of Christ, furnish an unanswera- 
ble argument in favor of his Deity; 
which those Unitarians who follow 
Griesbach are called upon to meet. But 
Mr. Campbell concluded it was much 
the easiest way to omit these emendations 
altogether ; though he has followed 
Griesbach in others, where the Deity of 
Christ is not so clearly expressed, as e. 
g. Rom. 15 : 29 ; 2 Thes. 2 : 8, etc. 

3. The Holy Spirit. — Being sick at 
heart from witnessing the continued ex- 
hibitions of depravity, brought to view by 
the investigation of this subject, we have 
omitted many passages which should be 
dwelt upon in considering the preceding 
topic ; and for the same reason shall give 
but a few specimens under the present. 
Jude 20. Dr. Doddridge renders, " Pray- 
ing with the Holy Spirit," but Mr. 
Campbell gives the Unitarian rendering, 
" Praying by a Holy Spirit." And this 
Mr. Campbell styles the translation of 
Drs. Doddridge and Macknight! 2 

* I would refer the reader to an sdmirable article on 
this passage, in Bib. Eepos., II., p. 57— SO, by Prof. 
Stuart, of Andover. 

u 



Thess. 2: 13, "Through sanctification 
of the Spirit ;" Dr. Doddridge renders 
it, "By sanctification of the Spirit;" Mr. 
Campbell, for obvious reasons, prefers to 
render it, " Through sanctification of 
Spirit." 1 Pet. 1: 2, Dr. Doddridge 
renders, "By sanctification of the Spirit ;" 
Dr. Macknight, " Through sanctification 
of the Spirit;" but Mr. Campbell has it, 
" Through a sanctification of the Spirit.'* 
Thus does he do away with the person- 
ality of the Christian Comforter. Acts 
6 : 3, " Look ye out seven men full of 
the Holy Ghost and wisdom;" Mr. 
Campbell has it, "Full of Spirit and 
wisdom ;" not only departing from Dod- 
dridge's version, but even going further 
than the Unitarian editors of the " Im- 
proved Version." For they, not feeling 
at liberty to expunge the word " holy," 
enclosed it in brackets. But omitting 
other instances similar to those above, we 
will name but one more, as a specimen 
of what Mr. Campbell has done in nu- 
merous instances, where he feared that 
it might appear too glaring to omit the 
words akogether. Gal. 4 : 6, " The 
Spirit of his Son ;" Drs. Doddridge and 
Macknight both give it the same render- 
ing ; and understand the Holy Spirit to 
be here referred to. But Mr. Campbell 
disposes of the Holy Spirit, by giving 
the passage the following expression ; 
" The spirit of his Son." The altera- 
tion consists only in the change of a 
capital letter for a small one ; but every 
one knows, that whenever in the New 
Testament the word Spirit is employed 
to designate the Christian Comforter, the 
first letter is a capital ; though when 
used in any other sense it is not so. 

Since the appearance of my Essay, as 
well as previous, other writers have spo- 
ken of this production of Mr. C. with a 
severity which I cannot but think is fully 
merited. 

One writer in the New York Evan- 
gelist of Nov. 10, 1842, says, "It is not 
the translation of Geo. Campbell, Mac- 
knight, or Doddridge ; either collectively 
or separately; as a whole or in parts. 
It is a garbled mass, difieriug in impor- 
tant particulars from each and all of 
them." "It is a gross falsehood, a libel 
on the memory of Philip Doddridge, to 
pretend that he even gave his sanction to 
a translation which renders the words 



106 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



baptize and baptism^ by the words im- 
merse and immersion.'^ 

Another writer (Oct. 19, 1843,) says, 
" What is our surprise then, in examin- 
ing the commentaries of these divines, to 
find that he (Mr. C.) has completely 
changed the majority of those passages 
which are essential to prove the peculiar 
points of his belief?" And then refer- 
ring to this and other facts in relation to 
this book, he says, " What, are we left 
then to conclude from facts such as these ? 
There is but one conclusion, and that is 
this : in order to give respectability and 
currency to the work in the community, 
he, without justice or integrity, palmed 
it off as the work of men who had almost 
nothing to do with it. And in the light 
of these facts, we are compelled to pro- 
nounce this one of the grossest deceptions 
ever practiced upon men." See also 
Jennings' Debate, pp. 123 — 142. M'Cal- 
la on Baptism, pp. 94 — 1 17. Dr. Cle- 
land's Strictures, pp. 32 — 47. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

A REVIEW OF THE CAMPBELLITE CONTRO- 
VERSY. 

Before closing our work we have 
thought it to be important to consider 
what Mr. Campbell has offered in reply 
to our former Essay ; and in doing so shall 
also give a brief outline of the Campbell- 
ite controversy in general. 

Upwards of thirty years ago, Mr. C. 
abandoned the ministry of the Gospel in 
the Presbyterian church and united v»^ith 
the Baptists. He, being confessedly a 
man of some talent, and possessing a 
smattering of Latin and Greek, was look- 
ed upon by our Baptist brethren as quite 
an accession: for his union with them 
was before the establishment of their 
present respectable literary institutions. 
He was therefore joyfully hailed by 
them as an able and efficient co-worker 
in this department of the Redeemer's 
kingdom. 

Awhile after his union with our breth- 
ren, he begun to evince a restless dispo- 
sition to justify the step which he had 
taken in abandoning Paedobaptism, and 
the Gospel mode of administering bap- 
tism by applying the water to the subject 



of the ordinance, instead of applying the 
subject to the water. And being a man 
of great skill and tact in oral discussion, 
(as his splendid victory over the notori- 
ous Robert Owen, in 1829, has shown,) 
he desired a public debate with some 
Paedobaptist. Ultimately, in 1820, his 
defiance was taken up by the Rev. Mr. 
Walker of the Presbyterian communion. 
It is not derogating from Mr. Walker's 
talents and amiable character to say that 
in controversial tact he was not a match 
for his adversary. He defended his 
cause nobly, but seemed to be amazed at 
the "immense piles" of Latin and Greek 
Lexicography, versions, &;c., &c., which 
Mr. C, for the sake of display and efiect, 
had brought upon the platform. The 
report of the debate, afterwards publish- 
ed by Mr. C, is bitterly complained of 
by Mr. W. as doing him the most gross 
and palpable injustice, and he subse- 
quently exposed it in a publication, to 
which one of the Moderators also added 
a dozen pages of exceptions which he had 
taken to the same report. 

The victory was, of course, claimed 
by both parties. But the Baptists being 
the more numerous, Mr. C. was embold- 
ened to reiterate his challenge ; proposing 
to prove that infant baptism was "injuri- 
ous to the well being of society both reli- 
gious and political." This challenge 
was before the public for several years, 
ere it was accepted, and the consequence 
was, Mr. Campbell's popularity increased 
greatly. At length the Rev. Wm. L. 
M'Calla, of Kentucky, being made ac- 
quainted with the fact, (while on a jour- 
ney,) that such a challenge from Mr. C. 
existed, at once opened a correspondence 
with him, which terminated in a debate 
at Washington, Kentucky, in October, 
1823. Mr. C, in this debate, found a 
man who, in controversial tact, was fully 
his equal; and, except among Mr. Camp- 
bell's partizans, the fair impression seem- 
ed to be that he had met with rather 
more than his match. Mr. C.'s breth- 
ren, however, still claimed the victory; 
and his great facility in composition, ena- 
bled him to prepare a report of the de- 
bate very speedily, which, among the 
Baptists, was popular beyond all prece- 
dent. This work Mr. M'Calla exposed 
in a pamphlet of 150 pages, octavo, enti- 
tled, " The Unitarian Baptist of the Rob- 



AND REFUTED 



107 



inson School exposed;" and subsequently 
has demonstrated, in his argument, pub- 
lished by himself in an octavo volume of 
400 pages, that Mr. C. has been guilty 
of unfairness scarcely credible in any 
man : and that he has not only omitted, 
in his report of the debate, entire topics 
in Mr. M'Calla's argument, but has ac- 
tually also omitted his real speeches and 
substituted for him others entirely new 
and irrelevant. 

The Baptist brethren however, attri- 
buted the victory to Mr. C. fully and un- 
equivocally. His work was received by 
them with the highest applause, and the 
commendations bestowed upon him were 
calculated to make Mr. C. think that he 
was the most eminent theologian in the 
land. He had the weakness to publish 
some of these fulsome panegyrics, and 
they contributed greatly to his influence 
in the West. 

It was now that he determined, (as Dr. 
Fishback remarks, see Chap. I. above,) 
to do great things for the Baptists. Pre- 
vious to his debate with Mr. McCalla, he 
had adopted the sentiment of remission 
of sins by immersion. And about this 
time he commenced his well known 
" Christian Baptist," in which begins his 
formal crusade against evangelical reli- 
gion. His influence in the Baptist 
church was unlimited, and it was consid- 
ered as almost sacrilege to hint anything 
against the soundness of a brother who 
had merited so well of the denomination. 
No man ever knew better than Mr, 
Campbell, how to make the most of such 
things ; and accordingly, he succeeded in 
leading a vast multitude of his brethren 
along with him, in his speculations, until 
his whole system was fully developed. — 
His Christian Baptist was a great favor- 
ite, until the full developement of his sys- 
tem ; and was hailed with joy by all 
kinds of errorists. The " Reformation" 
which Mr. C. formally begun in this 
work, was seconded by the Gospel Lu- 
minary, the Christian Messenger, and all 
the other Unitarian partizan papers. You 
can scarcely open one of these papers 
without finding- them exultins: at having 
such an ally as "brother Campbell." See 
for example Gospel Luminary, Vol. HI. 
p. 252, New Series, and Vol. IV. p. 32, 
and the Christian Messenger, passim. 
One Unitarian Minister, in writing to B. 



W. Stone, says : " Brother Stone,— I have 
been a constant reader of the Christian 
Messenger, and Christian Baptist, and 
with much pleasure view how truth can 
triumph over error." Gosp. Luminary. 
Vol. IV. quoted from the C. Mess.— 
Another Unitarian Minister says, " Lib- 
eral feelings and ancient Christianity are 
certainly progressing. The Christian 
Messenger, and Brother Campbell's 
Works are producing a happy influence 
in this country." Vol. IV. p. 30. And 
another of their Ministers says : " The 
good cause of religion is still, I think, 
progressing gradually. Among the 
Baptist brethren in this State, divisions 
abound, so that it is not uncommon to 
find the father against the son, and the 
son against the father, &c. Mr. A. 
Campbell's opinions are spreading rapid- 
ly among them," &c. Vol. III. p. 35.— 
And yet in these same works you find 
such revolting language as the follow- 
ing : " The doctrine of the Trinity is in 
very low repute in the West ; it has re- 
ceived a deadly wound, and physicians 
are scarce." p. 33. And also such no- 
tices as the following, of that wretched 
tissue of blasphemy, written by "Elder 
Kinkade," from which we have quoted 
so copiously in a foregoing Chapter : — 
" Bible Doctrine. — Elder Kinkade's 
book on Bible Doctrine, may be had at 
266 Bowery. A discount of 25 per 
cent, will be allowed to agents. Orders 
addressed to S. Clough, will receive 
prompt attention." p. 36. This "S. 
Clough" was editor of the periodical 
from which this notice is taken ; and it 
shows in what repute among " brethren" 
of Mr. C. was this vile and infamous 
production. 

Such things as these were truly well 
calculated to alarm the evangelical por- 
tion of the Baptist denomination ; but it 
was long before any thing was attempted 
by them against him. They had so ex- 
ceedingly boasted of his accession to their 
ranks, that they could not at first bring 
themselves to cast him off; and then 
again, he had done them much essential 
service in defending their views of bap- 
tism, and justifying their exclusion of 
other denominations from the communion 
table. They were therefore willing to 
think that he had been misunderstood, 
and that if erroneous, he might by mild 



108 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



means yet be induced tx) abandon his 
errors. 

Meanwhile, Mr. C. faithfully improv- 
ed his opportunity ; and as he was still 
recognized as a Baptist Minister, in fuli 
standing, he run riot over the churches 
of his denomination in every direction. — 
In every conceivable way did he propa- 
gate his errors, until at length, among 
the dense Baptist population which, so to 
speak, encircled him, one solitary voice 
was heard protesting against his grievous 
corruptions of Gospel doctrine, and also 
faithfully admonishing the community to 
be upon their guard against his insidious 
movements. 

The brother who thus came forward, 
and almost immolated himself (being 
every where surrounded with the most 
bigoted partizans of Mr. C.) was the 
Rev. Mr. Greatrake of the Baptist 
Church, He urged and entreated his 
brethren to be upon their guard ; pointed 
out in a masterly style, the pernicious er- 
rors of Mr. C, and besought his brethren 
to ask themselves whether they were wil- 
ling to abandon the spiritual religion of 
Jesus, for a wretched substitute of the 
sheerest formality. He admttted that Mr. 
C. had done some service in defending 
the views of the Baptist Church ; but 
what then, said he, are we, therefore, to 
suffer him to lead us into the most fatal 
and soul-damning delusion ? but yet all 
these admonitions w€re in vain ; 

"His zeal 
None seconded, as out of season judged, 
Or singular and rash. — And from their midst he pass'd, 
Long way through hostile scorn, which he sustained 
Superior, nor of violence fear'd aught ; 
And with retorted scorn his back he turned. 

Ultimately, however, it was found that 
the evangelical portion of the Baptist 
Church could not sustain itself, should its 
people continue to recognize Mr. C. And 
they made the effort to rid themselves of 
him. A mighty struggle commenced, 
which shook to its centre the whole de- 
nomination. Hundreds of churches were 
shattered to fragments ; yet they finally 
succeeded, and the result may be seen by 
the quotations which, in the course of 
this work, we have made from their wri- 
tings, and the minutes of their associa- 
tions. A fierce controversy begun, and 
Mr. C then formally commenced his ca- 
reer of denouncing and proscribing all 
evangelical denominations. His numer- 



ous satellites went abroad into all parts 
of the land on their mission of prosely- 
ting, and his sect, by their union with the 
Unitarians, has become very numerous. 

Such is a brief history of this sect from 
its origin until the present time. 

No denomination has however inher- 
ited so large a portion of Mr. C.'s anath- 
emas and denunciations as the Presbyte- 
rians. His proscriptions of them have 
all the gall and wormwood of friendship 
turned to hatred. Continually in speak- 
ing of them he seems to act as though he 
were resenting a personal injury. And 
it is certain that had it not been for the 
learning and intelligence of some pres- 
byterian ministers, such as Dr. Cle- 
land, Dr. Jennings, Rev. J. C. Stiles, 
and others, the progress of this apostacy 
would have been much less restricted 
than it now is. 

The occasion of my own collision 
with this sect is as follows. While in 
the discharge of my pastoral duties in 
Pennsylvania in 1834, an adroit and bold 
proselyting follower of Mr. C. (an Eng- 
lish physician,) came into the bounds of 
my congregation, and commenced hold- 
ing a series of meetings. Being thor- 
oughly acquainted with the arts which 
they employ on such occasions, I, so 
soon as I had heard of the gentleman's 
intentions, made them known to my peo- 
ple from the pulpit, and told them that if 
they had any curiosity to hear the speak- 
er, by all means to go, — adding also that 
the bare supposition that they could be 
injured or misled, by any advocate of 
such a tissue of nonsense, would be an 
implication of their intelligence and com- 
mon sense, such as I should be exceed- 
ingly grieved to think there could be any 
foundation for. The prospect of his 
coming had produced a very great sensa- 
tion throughout the community, and an 
irrepressible desire to know what the 
" new doctrine " was. In due time he 
came on ; and (it having been the custom 
of ministers elsewhere, to warn their 
people not to attend his meetings, a fact 
of which I was aware,) began his lecture 
with the remark that, " Your ministers 
have told you not to come hear me 
preach, have they — well, I don't wonder 
at it, for they have reason to dread the 
consequence should their people venture 
to hear, or to think for themselves." But 



AND REFUTED 



109 



here one of the orator's friends touched 
his elbow, and whispered to him that such 
was not the fact; for "Mr. L. had rather 
encouraged his people to go and hear for 
themselves." The effect of this upon 
the audience was eminently happy. 

I myself attended on an afternoon: 
and he being apprised of my being pre- 
sent, challenged me to dispute with him 
respecting regeneration, &c. I assented 
at once. But after that day's discussion 
could never prevail upon him to meet me 
again. An influential man in tlie com- 
munity, (a member of my congregation,) 
was deputed by me, to wait upon the 
preacher, and solicit his consent to con- 
tinue the debate, but could not prevail up- 
on him to do so. My friend being an 
extensive manufacturer,* stated to the 
Dr. that if he would only consent to the 
proposal, the manufacturers in the district 
would suspend their operations for the 
purpose of affording their people an op- 
portunity to attend : but the Dr. would 
not consent, and the effect was that the 
little colony of the Campbellites, which 
had already become organized, dwindled 
away and came to nothing. 

I prepared, also, and delivered a course 
of lectures, exposing the doctrines of this 
sect ; and subsequently at the instance 
of my friends, published the substance 
of them in the " Christian Gazette" of 
Philadelphia. And in 1838, it being 
suggested to me by Dr. Peters to furnish 
an Article on Campbellism for the Bibli- 
cal Repository, I prepared the Essay, 
which appeared in that periodical in 
1839. 

I owe it to myself to be thus particu- 
lar in making these statements, on ac- 
count of the numerous and glaring mis- 
representations which Mr. C. has circu- 
lated, respecting the cause of my ap- 
pearing against his system. Nothing 
could have induced me to undertake the 
wretched drudgery of wading through his 
uninteresting and often disgusting carica- 
tures of the word of life, but an imperi- 
ous sense of duty to God and to my 
fellow men: I could not with a clear 
conscience refuse to undertake the labor 
which Providence had plainly assigned 
to me. But I have been abundantly 

* The occurrence took place at Rockdale, (Del. co- 
Pa.) on Chester creek. It is an extensive manufac. 
turing district. 



rewarded already by knowing that my 
labors herein have been blessed both in 
this country and in England wherever 
heresy prevails. 

This Essay has been substantially in- 
corporated with the present work. In 
Mr. C.'s reply to it, he was not able to 
overthrow a single position, nor could he 
be prevailed upon to enter into the real 
merits of a single question therein dis- 
cussed. Some things which he has com- 
plained of as personal, I have now omit- 
ted, finding that they did not strictly enter 
into the merits of the controversy ; and 
it was to such things mainly, that Mr. C. 
in his reply endeavored to divert the 
attcnton of his followers. In addition to 
this, he made a violent attack upon me 
personally; and has kept it up pretty 
well ever since, though I have not 
thought it necessary publicly to notice 
any thing which he has advanced, it hav- 
ing been my intention to prepare the 
present work, in which all that is neces- 
sary to be offered could be at once said. 

It is Mr. C.'s usual custom, to dispose 
of his opponents in this way, when he is 
unable to answer their arguments. A 
weak opponent, who can get no advan- 
tage over him, he will extol to the skies. 
He will speak of their acuteness, mag- 
nanimity and candor, &c. to give the 
public an idea of his ^'' impartiality J^ 
and to make his own victory appear the 
more considerable. But he has, Avithout 
exception, assailed the honesty, candor, 
motives — or in one word, the moral char- 
acter of every one whose arguments are 
too hard for him. After Mr. M'Calla's 
victory over him, Mr. C, with an indus- 
try which evinced how much, in his 
estimation, depended upon it, raked to- 
gether and published whatever could be 
tortured into an unfavorable representa- 
tion of him, respecting a trifling difficulty 
which, it vfas said, Mr. M'C. had had 
with some members of his church. The 
accomplished Dr. Jennings, who gave 
Mr. C. so signal an exposure and over- 
throw, in a public debate in Nashville, 
Tenn., Dec, 1830, he styles " a prostrate 
antagonist;" and assails his moral char- 
acter in every conceivable way: calls 
him directly, a great liar, says his work 
is"<^ forgery,''^ and "too gross a tissue 
of falsehood for any decent Presbyterian 
in America, who knows any thing of 



110 



C AMPBELLISM EXAMINED 



our (Mr. C's) views, writings, or his- 
tory. It is as great a fraud and imposi- 
tion as was ever printed in AmericaP 
Har. for 1839, p. 508. Of the Rev. 
Mr. Fuller, of the Baptist Church, who 
was appointed by the " Savannah River 
Baptist Association," to draw up the 
address from which we quoted in Chap. 
VI., Mr. C. says: "To expose such a 
pretender and such misrepresentation, 
would indeed be a work of supereroga- 
tion." Har. for 1840, p. 236. Of the 
Rev. Dr. Brantley he says, (referring to 
an article from which we quoted in 
Chap. VI.) "I say he knows better than 
to think that he does not falsify and mis- 
represent my views and practice." He 
accuses him also of " flagitious false- 
hood." Har., 1834. He calls the Rev. 
Mr. Jamieson, who proved rather too 
much for him at Mt. Sterling, Ky., " a 
very self-conceited and self-confident 
preacher." Har. 1840, p. 82. And 
against Dr. Sleigh, who challenged him 
to a discussion, and whose transcendent 
qualifications for oral debate Mr. C. was 
aware of, he published a tissue of vile and 
actionable calumnies collected from infidel 
papers, for which, (as Dr. S. informed 
me,) he had the meanness to apologize 
in a private letter, in order to stay a 
threatened civil prosecution. The Rev. 
J. C. Stiles is an '•'• unprincipled adver- 
sary f and even the venerable and 
learned Rev. Dr. Cleland, is perpetually 
assailed with all the scurrility ahd ca- 
lumny, which Mr. C. and the corres- 
pondents of the Harbinger can rake 
together. For awhile after the appear- 
ance of my Essay, I was, in this depart- 
ment, '•''lord of the ascendant" tiW Dr. 
John Pye Smith, of Homerton, Eng., 
venturing, in his work on Scriptural 
Geology, to refer to my Essay, I was at 
once dethroned from the " ascendency," 
and Dr. S., without ceremony, appointed 
to be my successor. He is accused of 
"unfounded falsehood," and of a sectari- 
anism "necessarily falsifying, detracting 
and calumniating;" and, in much mercy 
to myself, Mr. C. adds, " I think that 
even Landis himself is transcended in 
this baseless imputation." Har. 1839, p. 
534. And that I am now considered as 
no worse than my brethren, may further 
be seen by the following extract: " The 
most bigoted and intolerant Pcedobap- 



tists, — like Miller of Princeton, and 
Kurtz, of Baltimore, and Landis, of 
Pennsylvania, seek to defame us" &,c. 
Har. i840, p. 559. These may serve 
as specimens of Mr. C's method of con- 
ducting this controversy; and will pre- 
pare the reader to appreciate his " Re- 
view" of my Essay. 

I shall now proceed to give an outline 
of his Reply, and a narrative of the con- 
troversy as it relates to myself, since 
1839. 

In preparing the exordium of his Re- 
ply, it is evident that Mr. C. was thinking 
of the ancient rhetoricians, and of their 
precept in reference to the object to be 
attained by this part of a discourse ; for, 
after referring to my motto, he begins as 
follows : " When truth or character is at 
stake, we ask no favors from friend or 
foe. We demand investigation. We 
challenge criticism — fair, honorable, im- 
partial criticism. We fear not the tribu- 
nals, nor the canons, nor the decisions of 
enlightened, high-minded, honest criti- 
cism, however severe ; but the petulant 
cavils of saucy sectarism, the acrimoni- 
ous quibblings of cynical piquancy, the 
mawkish disdain of affected sanctity, and 
the supercilious denunciations of wounded 
pride — of ex cathedra, swollen, pam- 
pered orthodoxy, I can not endure." Har. 
1839, p. 481. 

He next proceeds to file a bill of ex- 
ceptions to my jurisdiction in the case, 
on the ground that I had been "engaged 
in a controversy with him in former 
years;" and from this fact ^'demonstrates 
that Tetzel, to say the least, was as well 
qualified, and as impartially prepared to 
review Lutheranism, and Luther's ver- 
sion of the Bible, as the aforesaid Rev. 
R. W. Landis, is to do either myself, or 
any thing I have written, justice before 
the public." He then proceeds, in illus- 
tration hereof, to refer to a childish mis- 
representation, which he had made of a 
criticism of mine, on Acts 22: 16,* in 
his Harbinger of 1835. I never even 
descended to reply to his misrepresenta- 
tion, and yet he pretends that I was 
"one of his special opponents," Har- 
binger, 1839, p. 335, and had been "en- 
gaged in a controversy with him in for- 
mer years." Bib. Repos. for April, 

* Reddere auditores attentos, benevolos, dociles. 



AND REFUTED. 



Ill 



1840. But if even I had been thus 
engaged with him, (which, however, is 
not the fact, as the reader has already 
seen,) would this disqualify me for repub- 
lishing my controversy, or writing anew? 
And yet, so pressed is Mr. C. for some- 
thing to say, which can have the appear- 
ance of weight with his sect, that he is 
obliged to assume such preposterous 
principles as this, in order to make the 
impression that my work is unfair, and 
does injustice to his views. 

He then says that " He (i. e. myself,) 
next affirms some half dozen of pal- 
pable falsehoods concerning my early 
history, emigration to this country," &c., 
and he reads me a lecture for attempting 
to sustain these my statements by refer- 
ring to " that most infamous libel of his 
sentiments,''^ written by Dr. Jennings. 
These references are omitted by me in 
the present work, because they do not 
enter really into the merits of the contro- 
versy. But Mr. C, glad of any oppor- 
tunity to evade the true points at issue, 
knaws not how to give up dwelling upon 
such irrelevant matters. He therefore 
continues by remarking that his " impar- 
tial and benevolent reviewer " would 
have been " less indecorous and malig- 
nant," if he had not "preambled his 
review with such a phalanx of unground- 
ed assertions, unmanly imputations, and 
viperous calumnies;" which, (continued 
he) " evinces him to be wanting of every 
primary attribute of an impartial Ee- 
viewer, and more eminently fitted to 
abuse than to convince." 

"Still," says he, "I cannot but be 
thankful for the timous display of his 
acrimony, sinister feeling and prejudice." 
And, as he can always exactly tell be- 
forehand how his sect will decide any 
matter, provided they can only first learn 
his own view of it, he adds that " his 
(my) failure in the end cannot now be 
imputed, either to want of determination, 
or to lack of zeal in the cause of defam- 
ation. We shall then, with all calmriess 
and self-possession, (!!) proceed to the 
examination of this monstrous thing call- 
ed Campbellism." Here ends the ex- 
ordium. 

The self-same " calmness and self-pos- 
session^^ with which he thus begins, is 
continued through the whole review, 
comprising about 50 closely printed octa- 



vo pages ; and it has ever since been 
characteristic of every reference which 
he has made to myself or my Essay. 

He next proceeds to deny that his 
views are ambiguously expressed in his 
writings. This denial is followed by an 
admission that I have rightly exhibited 
his views of faith, which he here also la- 
bors to defend. Then referring to a quo- 
tation which I had made from Dr. Jen- 
nings' Debate, and by a misprint referred 
to it simply by the title Debate, instead . 
of ^^ Jennings'' Debate; " Mr. C.'s " calm 
ness and self-possession" exhibit them- 
selves in the following style : " Did you 
know, Dr. Peters, that this is an unman- 
ly, an unchristian attempt to impose upon 
your readers the words of a weak and 
prejudiced opponent as though they were 
mine ? Positively, to all who will ex- 
amine, it must appear a most Jesuitical 
attempt;" and he says that I pretend to 
refer to his own " Debate^"* on the sub- 
ject, though he never published a work 
on it with this title. In the Repository 
of July 1840, I have fully shown how- 
ever that the quotation expresses precise- 
ly the Doctrine of Mr. C, as he has 
elsewhere expressed it in his own words. 
But the omission of " Jennings," before 
" Debate," he thought afforded him an 
excellent opportunity to undervalue my 
reputation for fairness, and must by con- 
sequence, lead his readers to infer that 
I no doubt have drawn up an unfair re- 
presentation of his views. 

In the next place, he refers on p. 486— 
488, to a number of quotations, which I 
had made from his works expressing his 
views of faith, every one of which, he 
admits is correctly and fairly made ; and 
he proceeds to justify the doctrine which 
they express. But so desirous is he, not 
to let me derive any credit from this ad- 
mission, as to my fairness in quotation, 
that he is determined to say something to 
prevent it, and yet scarcely knows what ; 
till at last, says he, (and in reference to 
these same quotations,) " He is too gross, 
and undiscriminating a reader of the Bi- 
ble, and of my works, ever to be depend- 
ed on in his quotations or comments:"— 
thus denying his own admission that I 
had quoted him fairly. 

He next quotes my general summary 
of his views respecting regeneration. — 
And though he neither refers to, nor at- 



112 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED', 



tempts to explain his language which I 
had quoted, sustaining my statement of 
those views, he, without hesitation, affirms 
that " this portion of the review, is a tis- 
sue of misrepresentation and perversion, 
from beginning to end," " false and delu- 
sive," containing "much imposition and 
deception :" And he attempts to make a 
puerile and unavailable distinction be- 
tween "temporal and eternal salvation," 
which in no conceivable way can affect 
the matter under discussion. 

This part of his review was transferred 
by him to the Biblic. Repos. for April 
1840. And in relation to this broad de- 
nial by Mr. C. of the positions which I 
had taken. Dr. Peters thus remarks, in a 
note, on p. 480. " If the reader will re- 
cur to Mr. Landis' article, p. 99, seq., he 
will find the foregoing propositions fully 
illustrated and fastened upon Mr. Camp- 
bell, by ample quotations from his wri- 
tings and publications. This defence, 
therefore, strikes us as an evasion of the 
points at issue, and we think every intelli- 
gent reader will see that Mr. C, has 
much more reason to confess, than to 
complain of want of candor. And we 
cannot see that his following remarks on 
his definition of the words 'salvation,' 
<fcc., relieve him in any measure from the 
point of Mr. Landis' statements."* 

After this attempt to get his readers 
into a foggy atmosphere, Mr. C. next pro- 
ceeds to the subject of remission of sins ; 
and accuses me of " flagitious perversion." 
This accusation I have already noticed 
sufficiently in Chap. II. Sect. IV. 

He then proceeds as follows : " My 
jaundiced friend has given us a string of 
propositions, syllogisms, and corollaries 
that really confound me. [This, I have 
no doubt is the truth.] I know not 
whether to regard him as acting the 
knave or the simpleton." He here refers 
to the statements which the reader will 
find in Section VI. of Chap. II., not one 
of them however, does Mr. C. attempt to 
meet. He passes all with a remark or 
two, charging them with absurdity: up- 
on which Dr. Peters observes, that this 
is " an easy way of refuting an alleged 
slander. We advise the reader to exam- 
ine Mr. Landis' grounds for the assertion 
here referred to." 

* These same propositions are stated and illustrated 
in the present work, Chap. II. Sect. V. 



By way of concluding this part of his 
review, Mr. C. remarks : " Mr. Landis 
is pre-eminently unfortunate in all his 
conceptions of this monstrous thing nick- 
named Campbellism: He has less dis- 
cernmenij or more knavery, than any the- 
ological 'pugilist I have ever encounter 
ed;' &c. p. 495. 

Mr. C. next proceeds to review my ex- 
positions of his proof texts. He says 
" Our learned and critical reviewer takes 
up Jno. 3: 5. Tit. 3: 5. Acts 22: 16. 
Matt. 16: 16. Acts 2: 38, and endeav- 
ors to show that we have misapplied 
these scriptures in our controversy with 
the sects." p. 495. He is remarkably 
brief in this part of the review ; nor does 
he attempt to grapple with my exposition 
of a single text. And yet in the Biblic. 
Repos. 1840, p. 486, he pretends that he 
has really done this, and refers his read- 
ers " to the Harbinger." 

His exceptions to my criticisms, would 
actually disgrace a school-boy. For ex- 
ample, I had said that v5wp was constant- 
ly, (I should have said 'frequently,'') em- 
ployed in the New Testament, "m a 
sense quite the reverse^^ of the mere ele- 
ment water. Mr. C. quotes and com- 
ments on this remark, as follows : " On 
the contrary, he (myself,) assumes that it 
does not mean water, but 'constantly 
quite the reverse. Can any one tell what 
is quite the reverse of water ! Is it fire, 
or earth, or spirit, or what?" Thus by 
omitting the words " in a sense,^^ which 
makes the expression perfectly proper, 
he is enabled to show his wit in a low and 
childish jest. 

In opposition to my remark above, he 
says that the term " water is never used 
figuratively in the New Testament, with- 
out " some epithet affixed or prefixed, as 
'water of life^ 'living water," '_ &c. 
And in view of my assertion that it con- 
stantly is to be " understood in a sense 
quite the reverse," which he again re- 
peats, he exclaims "Avhat wild beasts 
there are yet living at Ephesus!!_ In 
what awful straits do these spirituaiizers 
place themselves, while opposing the 
truth?" Now in my remark I contem- 
plated the term as used in connexion with 
the " epithets" of which Mr. C. speaks. 
But if the reader would wish to see the 
extent of Mr. C.'s acquaintance with the 
Bible, as exhibited in the remark, that 



AND REFUTED. 



113 



when employed metaphorically, it always 
has such an epithet connected with it: let 
him consult Rev. 7: '7, and 17: 1, 15. 
Jno. 4: 15, Eph. 5: 26. 1 Cor. 3: 6- 
8. See also in the Old Testament, Ps. 
23: 2, and 69: l,and 73: 10. Prov. 
23: 2. Is. 30: 20, and 44: 3, and 55: 
1. Jer. 2: 13, &c, &c. And finally, 
though he professes to place no reliance 
on human authority, Mr. C, with his 
usual consistency, proceeds to refer to the 
Greek and Roman churches, &c., as sus- 
taining his views of the passage against my 
exposition. He next proceeds as follows : 

" Our erudite reviewer next attempts to 
take from us Titus 3 : 5." Of this passage 
he gives my explanation fairly, though 
briefly, and adds: '' He also quotes the Ro- 
man Catholic editions, [edition^ for I ex- 
pressly stated what edition I quoted,] of the 
Vulgate to prove him right, while he ac- 
knowledges that the Rhemish translators 
departed from the common text of the 
Yulgatei'^ 

After thus briefly stating my view of 
this passage, he thus continues, and to 
sustain himself appeals to authorities, on 
whom he has " no reliance whatever -^ 
" Suppose I should place the Westmins- 
ter Divines, the Presbyterian Church, 
the Roman Catholic, and the Episcopali- 
an, against Mr. Landis and the Vulgate. 
What then % Or suppose I should quote 
the Presbyterian Matthew Henry, [who 
did not write on this passage,] whose 
words (!) are sustamed by all the prece- 
ding. What will Mr. Landis say?" — 
" But Mr. Landis will say I must not put 
him down by authority, but by argument. 
What then is his argument? It is this; 
that xat, often translated and^ is some- 
times translated even^ and because some- 
times translated even^ it must be so trans- 
lated here! But for what reason ? There 
is but one given — the version must be so 
changed to enable Mr. Landis, to oppose 
my application of it! Irresistible logic 1" 
See p. 497. This is sufficient to give, 
(in Mr. C.'s own words,) an idea of how 
he disposes of my criticisms and argu- 
ments; and let the reader please turn 
back to my exposition of this passage in 
Chap. III. and see if this be the only rea- 
son I have given for thus translating the 
word, or whether I gave it at all. 

Mr. C. then attempts what logicians 
call the reductio ad abswrdum ; and ludi- 

15 



crously tries to show that if I am correct 
in interpreting xal in this passage, that, 
therefore^ it ought uniformly to be so 
translated wherever it occurs. And thus, 
says he, we should have, " Repent even 
be baptized," "He that believeth, even is 
baptized:" and he says that "Mr. Lan- 
dis^ ruW would require them to be thus 
rendered, though he nowhere stales what 
this rule is. And he adds, " See where 
his criticism ends ! By this time I trust 
he will begin to believe that 'A little 
learning is a dangerous thing.' " Can 
any thing be more laughable than for a 
person to think that such nonsense as this 
is any refutation of the argument? 

After quoting the foregoing line of po- 
etry, Mr. C. proceeds in the following 
strain, which, if the reader can explain, 
in connexion with the above extracts, he 
certainly will deserve well of their au- 
thor. "But is it a fact, as Mr. Landis 
would have his readers believe, that the 
Roman church interprets Tit. 3: 5, as not 
referring to baptism ? Our reviewer is 
mistaken. Their words on that very 
text, are, ' As before in the sacrament of 
holy orders, so here it is plain that bap- 
tism giveth grace ; and that by it, as by an 
instrumental cause, we are saved.' See 
Rhemish Testament, Tit. 3: 5, 'Trans- 
lated out of the Vulgate, and first publish- 
ed by the English College at Rheims.' 
I care not an atom what the Roman 
Catholic or Protestant churches may say; 
but I quote this to show how much credit 
is due to the quotations and comments of 
my pious reviewer^^ p. 498. In my ex- 
position of Tit. 3: 5, I quoted the excel- 
lent edition of the Latin Vulgate, pub- 
Hshed at Basil in 1578: an edition, which, 
as the tide avers, was the result of a 
most diligent collation of the best manu- 
scripts. I took occasion also to remark, 
as Mr. C. has observed above, that the 
^^ Rhemish translators had departed^'' 
from this edition; and yet Mr. C, for- 
getting what he had said only a few lines 
before, now brings up this my admission 
" to show how much credit is due'' to my 
"quotations and comments," intimating 
that I had denied, instead of asserting, 
the fact. And I have no doubt that ma- 
ny good Campbellites and Unitarians, 
who are, I presume, always accustomed 
to take Mr. C.'s latest assertion as the 
true one, beUeve to this day that I actually 



114 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED 



denied that the Rhemish translators so 
interpreted Tit. 3: 5. 

Mr. C. closes his observations on my 
exposition of this text, with the remark, 
"Indeed, I know no critic, translator, or 
scholar, living or dead, who has any fel- 
lowship for the bold and presumptuous 
gloss of this would-be critic of a matter 
which he does not understand." 

Next come his remarks on my expo- 
sition of Acts 22: 16. Here he carefully 
conceals my explanation from his read- 
ers, and says, that "Mr. L.'s argument 
here is, that Paul was to wash away his 
sins by prayer and not by baptism." 
Now let the reader turn over to chap. III. 
and see if this be my "argument." Mr. 
C. employs the term "siws" here in a 
sense in which I have not employed it in 
my criticism ; and as I stated also with 
special care. I had said that afiaptla? gov, 
(thy sins,) does not here refer to all Paul's 
sins, but merely to the stains or reproach 
which rested on his character as a perse- 
cutor of the church ; and that these stains 
could only be washed away, by his now 
uniting with that church. (But let the 
reader refer to the passage.) And yet 
the entire reply of Mr. C. to me, on this 
passage, is based upon this puerile mis- 
representation. He makes his readers 
believe that I use the term sins here to 
mean all the sins of Paul. 

He next proceeds to Mark 16: 16, and 
Acts 2: 38, on both of which passages 
he says that I agree with him. He pro- 
nounces a portion of my exposition ^%ery 
judicious;" and says, "If I could think 
Mr. Landis was a sincere good man, and 
honest in this assertion, I would hail him 
as a brother." But as I have, in the 
conclusion of chap. V., said sufficient in 
reference to this '•^ agreemenf^ between 
Mr. C. and myself, it is unnecessary to 
add any thing here. 

After dismissing these matters of criti- 
cism, Mr. C. proceeds to make a long 
quotation from Calvin, to exhibit, as he 
says, " his views of baptism as connected 
with immersion:"* which quotation, (like 
most that he makes to sustain his views,) 

* This strange expression I concluded was a mis- 
print ; but Mr. C. employs it both here, and in the new 
review of my Essay, which he prepared for the Repos- 
itory. I do not feel at liberty to alter it therefore, 
though by "immersion," he means perhaps "remis- 
Bion,"or "regeneration." 



is wholly and directly at variance with 
them. And yet upon his gross misun- 
derstanding and misapplication of this 
quotation he predicates the following 
most polite and affectionate remark:— 
"Our Calvinistic opponents are either 
very ignorant persons of their own sys- 
tem, OR VERY GREAT KNAVES," p. 503. 

Knave, says Webster, is a rogue, a false, 
deceitful fellow : s'o that all Mr. C.'s Cal- 
vinistic opponents are '-^very ignorant, or 
are very great" rogues. No wonder he 
consigns us to perdition without mercy, 
for what else can become of " very great 
knaves." 

With two or three other and similar 
exhibitions of " calmness and self-posses- 
sion," such as ranking me with "the en- 
emies of the pure and uncorrupt religion 
of the New Testament," and threatening 
Dr. Peters and myself, that the Camp- 
bellites will place us " amongst defamers 
and calumniators of the foulest water," 
he closes the first part of his Reply. 

The second part begins with some re- 
marks on my arguments against his views 
of faith, remission, and regeneration, and 
in all that he offers in answer to me, he 
does not even pretend to refute a single 
one of the ar guments. I have already 
referred to this fact in chap. V. 

His next topic is " The Unitarianism 
of the Campbellites." Here his "self- 
possession" is quite apparent. And be- 
cause I had stated that the majority of 
the Campbellites are Unitarians, (which 
I still afhrm,) he says that I insult his 
sect "with most foul, malevolent, and 
unfounded declarations;" and continues, 
"a more wicked falsehood was never 
uttered." And because I had very inno- 
cently mistaken* Mt. Holly for Mt. Ster- 
ling, \\\ Kentucky, as the scene of Rev. 
Mr. Jamieson's encounter with him, he, 
(referring to the "flagitious falsehood" 
last named,) says, " This is also as flagi- 
tious a falsehood as the preceding, I ne- 
ver saw Mr. J. at Mt. Holly in my life. 
I saw him once in Mt. Sterling," &«., 
p. 507. 

After this, Dr. Jennings' '-'-Dehat^'' re- 
ceives another homily; and then, after 
comparing himself with Jeremiah the 
Prophet, and attempting to justify his 

* I had taken Dr. Jennings for ray authority in the 
assertion. 



AND REFUTED 



115 



indecent invectives against the ministry 
and pulpit in this country, (and to which 
reference was made in chap. VI.) adds, 
that if even some of his followers do ad- 
vocate Unitarianism, "I," (that is, Mr. 
C.,) "am not responsible for it any more 
than Prof. Stuart of Andover, is charge- 
able with the maliciousness^ recklessiiess^ 
and falsehoods of Mr. Landis.'^ 

This, of course, brings us the formal 
union of the Unitarians and Campbell- 
ites. As so much depends upon this 
point, every reader would expect that Mr. 
C. would be very full here. But no. 
He merely admits that the union did take 
place, and still continues, (for it is unde- 
niable,* ) and then to save himself, says 
that he does not believe the Chris tyans 
are Unitarians ! Yes, veracious reader, 
only hear him ; these are his words : 
" Had these persons all been Unitarian 
in the fullest sense of the word, and u?ii- 
ted with us on the ground of the Apostolic 
institutions alo7ie {! !) does this prove 
that w^e are Unitarian for fraternizing 
with them, or meeting them on these 
principles ? I never did, and I believe 

THEY NEVER DID FRATERNIZE WITH ArI- 

ANisM, SociNiANiSM, Sabelliauism ; or 
any other ism ; but in fact, upon a renun- 
ciation of all isms on their part and ours, 
and meeting on the Apostolic founda- 
tion:' p. 509. 

Here are two or three things worthy 
of note. Mr. C. does not believe that the 
Christyans ever did fellowship with Ari- 
anism &c., in other words he does not 
believe them to be Unitarian, for this is 
the plain import of his language. And 
yet in the Harbinger for 1839, p. 401, he 
says, that this '■'"party'''' "boast that 
THEY ARE UNITARIAN." — His words are, 
" The term Christy an m New England, 
and in some other sections of this land. 



* Mr. C. In his Harbinger (in which he durst not de- 
ny the fact,) asserts that this union did take place, and 
thai he " announced in the Harbinger such a union," 
See p. 509. And yet in the Repository, (which he 
thought his readers would not see,) he boldly asserts 
that '■I- there never was siLch a union as Mr, Landis af- 
firms;" and even pretends to prove it, See Repos. p. 
491. And it is only in the Repository also that he ven. 
tures to say, " I wonder w^hether Mr. Landis would 
take my testimony, when I affirm, that I know not ove 
single individual avowed Arian or Socinian teacher or 
layman in all our ranks, American or European ? I 
again say, not one." p. 492. He uses not such language 
In the Harbinger which is read by multitudes of his Uni- 
tarian followers ; or they might with reason have re- 
commended him to read Mrs. Qpie. 



is a name chosen and appropriated by a 
PARTY who BOAST that they are Unitari- 
ans.'''' Now this is the sect, between 
whom and his own the " union" took 
place. They boast that they are Unita- 
rian, and yet he does not believe that 
they are such, or that they " ever did fra- 
ternize with Arianism, Socinianism," &c. 
This is truly giving them a high character 
for sincerity. I doubt whether they will 
employ Mr. C. to write their history. 

But then again : he here also intimates, 
or I might say, plainly declares, that 
" Unitarians in the fullest sense of the 
word," that is, "m the obnoxious sense'''' 
in which he employs the term, (See 
Chap. VI.) may unite with his sect " on 
the ground of the apostolical institutions 
alone," and meet with thsm "on the 
apostolic foundation," even as the "Christ- 
yans " have done. And yet this Unita- 
rian sect, when it united wdth his follow- 
ers, neither abandoned nor changed one 
of its Unitarian features. This we have 
shown in Chap. VI. Hence it follows 
that the strictest Unitarians, even they 
who assert that Christ was only a mar- 
tyr, (for Mr. C. says there are such,) 
may, without abandoning their blasphe- 
mous doctrines, meet Mr. C.'s church 
"on the Apostolic foundation!" This 
is his own repeatedly expressed doctrine. 
And if this be not Unitarianism, I leave it 
to the reader to say whether it is not be- 
cause it is som^ething worse. It exceeds 
the Polish Socinians, and to my own 
mind appears to be a sheer compro- 
mise with open infidelity. Even Mr. C. 
elsewhere says that Unitarianism strictly, 
is no better than infidelity. See Har. p. 81. 

He then proceeds to say that some 
of these, his Unitarian brethren, regard 
him as " Trinitarian, Calvinistic, and 
Orthodox;" w^hich, by the way, is be- 
stowing a high compliment upon their 
intelligence, as Mr. C. himself will ad- 
mit. He next adds that his " calumnia- 
ting reviewer" quotes Kinkade's book to 
prove him, (Mr. C.) to be Unitarian. 
This is not precisely accurate. I quo- 
ted it to show that the sect with which 
Mr. C. and his people had united were 
Unitarian, and gave their own declara- 
tion to prove them to be " one family.'''' 
And my doing this, he styles "injustice 
and immorality," though he has not at- 
tempted to show that it is either. 



116 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED 



One might reasonably suppose from [ 
the evidence already given of the " calm- 
ness and self-possession" with which 
Mr. C. prepared his reply to me, that 
his Billingsgate vocabulary, (inasmuch as 
he speaks no language but English,) must 
be pretty well exhausted. But if any 
one should think so, he has reckoned 
without his host. Few men have so well 
weighed and considered \h.e force of our 
"epithets." And any one who will read 
this, his Review of my Essay, will doubt- 
less come to the conclusion that Mr. C. 
regards "epithets" and denunciations as 
the very root and foundation of the Eng- 
lish language. Witness the following 
specimen ; (which is next after the one 
quoted above,) and is based upon the 
foregoing absurd perversion of what I 
have said respecting this " union," and is 
as follows, (I copy the whole paragraph,) 
" To cap the climax, after having rumaged 
some seventeen volumes which I have 
published, unable to find in them all one 
single period which he could quote to 
prove me Unitarian in my views or state- 
ments, he would close the door in my 
face, and shut me out from the possibility 
of defending myself from such malignity, 
by informing his readers that although I 
should produce passages from my wri-' 
tings and those of my brethren in which 
we speak of the Deity or Godhead of 
the Messiah, in which ' he is spoken of 
as Divine, as God,' &;c. Yet we do not 
mean what we say : nay, the pious read- 
ers of Mr. L.'s review are * guarded from 
being entrapped by the equivocal phrase- 
ology of a disguised Unitarian ' ; and 
thus I must be forever doomed, without 
the possibility of explanation or defence, 
to endure the false and nefarious imputa- 
tions of a recreant calumniator." 

I should sincerely regret it, if by any 
misrepresentation of Mr. C.'s doctrine 
I had been the cause of thus exciting a 
passion which is as improper as it is un- 
governable ; but I fearlessly appeal to 
every reader of my Essay, or of the 
present work to decide whether such is 
the fact. If it had been so, Mr. C . would 
have gloried in exposing it, without dis- 
gracing himself by such ebullitions of 
prescriptive wrath. He would, with 
much more " calmness and self-posses- 
sion" than are here exhibited, have de- 
monstrated how my conclusions did not 



follow from my premises : for no man 
could do this better than he, if such were 
the fact. But the secret of his anger is, 
I compelled him, at the risk of offending 
his followers, to tell more plainly than 
he had ever done before, what were his 
real views respecting the person of the 
Redeemer. 

After the foregoing paragraph, his 
declarations follow respecting his views 
of the Godhead of Christ. These we 
have referred to in Chap. VI. And he 
concludes this portion of his review, by 
asking "What faith can be reposed in 
such men as Messrs. Jennings and Lan- 
dis?" and also by reading Dr. Peters 
a homily for " wantonly endorsing for 
such a presumptuous calumniator as Mr. 
Landis." 

He then proceeds as follows: "I am 
now at the last item in this most veritable 
and Christian review — ' The translation 
of the New Testament adopted hy the 
Campbellites.^ This part of the review 
is stamped with a falsehood on its fore- 
head. There is no translation adopted 
by the people so nick-named, except that 
of King James." But there vi^as no occa- 
sion for this passion in Mr. C, for every 
one understood me to mean no more by 
adopted^ than that Mr. C's sect used his 
translation in preference to any other: a 
fact that he will not deny. And surely 
this will fully justify my use of the term 
adopted. 

Mr. C. then proceeds to justify his 
retaining on the title page of his New 
Testament, the assertion that Doddridge 
was a member of the Church of Scot- 
land. This is a matter which I have 
considered in the Repos. of 1840, and it 
pains me even to refer to the exposure of 
Mr. C. which I was then compelled to 
make. The imputations against him, 
which necessarily result from his con- 
duct in this strange affair, are of so 
serious a nature, that while I shall here 
do no more than refer to them as briefly 
exhibited by me in the Repository, I 
cannot but express the hope, that, for the 
honor of humanity, he will be able to 
exculpate himself in some way. If, 
when his first edition was published, he 
did not know the ecclesiastical standing 
of Doddridge, (which is an incredible 
supposition, see Repos.,) he did know it 
before the sheets of his second edition 



AND REFUTED. 



117 



were all printed ; (for this he confesses 
in the book itself,) and yet he retains this 
— what shall I call it? — wpon his title 
page ! 

His wrath at the exposure of this 
matter became a perfect phrenzy. And 
as he knows not how to rebut this and 
my other statements, he exceedingly mis- 
represents what I say, I had said that 
Mr. C. would not correct his title page, 
until he had published several editions, 
(using several in the strictly classical 
sense of distinct, or different.) Mr. C. 
says he corrected it in the second edition, 
though the title of this edition is the same 
precisely as the first. I had said that 
after Mr. C declares in the book itself 
that he had learned Doddridge was not 
a member of the Church of Scotland, he 
even issued the book with the same title: 
Mr. C. makes me say, "issued several 
editions of the book" after this "with 
the same title." I had said that the 
translation still claimed Drs. Doddridge, 
Campbell, and Macknight as its authors, 
though it has been utterly changed by Mr. 
*C. He not knowing what else to reply 
to this makes me say that the hook still 
has its original title. And thus having 
prepared the way, as he thinks, to jus- 
tify his wrath, he pours it forth from full 
vials. The appellations which he had 
previously bestowed upon me, are mild 
and gentle to w^hat now follow. " Down- 
right and wilful falsehood," "deliberate 
dissimulation and falsehood," "nefari- 
ous thrust at my reputation." "These 
attempts at assassination — at the massacre 
of my reputation, are so diabolically per- 
verse in appearance," "the venom of the 
old Serpent," &c. &c. And yet while 
Mr. C. was writing all this foolery, he 
knew perfectly well that he had grossly 
misrepresented me in order to justify be- 
fore his people the employment of such 
language, and also to make them believe 
that I had not done him justice in my 
review of his translation. 

But even admitting that I had erred 
in all these matters, and had said all that 
Mr. C. so absurdly charges upon me in 
reference to them, what has this to do 
with the real merits of the question — 
with his palming upon the public a noto- 
riously Unitarian version, under the high 
sanction of three eminent orthodox di- 
vines? Making his unsuspicious fol- 



lowers believe that these men had aban 
doned Acts 20: 28, 1 Tim. 3: 16, Rev. 
1:11, &c. &c. to the shallow claims of 
the Unitarian school. What have these 
things to do Avith the question, as to the 
propriety of implicitly following Dr. 
Griesbach? Or with those astounding 
evidences of Mr. C's most culpable care^ 
lessness, (in publishing a stereotype edi- 
tion of his own version,) contrary to his 
most solemn and repeated and re-repeated 
asseverations? These things, duty to 
God and to man required of me to bring 
before the public, that it may be unde- 
ceived respecting the claims of this worst 
of all the worst English translations. 
And on all these points, Mr. C. says not 
one word that bears upon the subject. 

He next flies off into a dissertation on 
"spurious readings;" and makes a long 
quotation from a " distinguished critic," 
who is "much more learned than Mr. 
Landis;" p. 517 — 519. And after ma- 
king the quotation, (which really has no 
more to do with the points at issue than 
a quotation from the Arabian Nights,) he 
remarks, " I wonder how such men as 
Mr. Landis and Dr. Peters contemplate 
such facts as these, or whether they con- 
template them at all. If they do, surely 
they could not have so exposed them- 
selves in this rash and perverse review " 
But the point is not whether we contem- 
plate "such facts as these;" but simply 
this: why should Mr. C. palm off a 
notoriously Unitarian version of the 
New Testament, as the w^ork of Dod- 
dridge, &c? Why should he adopt, 
without reserve, the readings of Gries- 
bach, (who is frequently incorrect, and 
in the most important of them,) and pass 
them off as though adopted by the "three 
doctors?" Why should he mutilate the 
text, with a recklessness at which even 
the editors of the Unitarian Improved 
Version would have shuddered : and yet 
leave the reader to infer, that these muti- 
lations are sanctioned by the pious Drs. 
Doddridge, and Campbell, and Mac- 
knight? 

Mr. C. then makes a futile attempt to 
represent himself as a persecuted (!) man, 
and that all his persecutions from me, 
and Dr. Peters, &c. &c., can be traced 
to this '-^secret of the whole matterJ^ viz. 
he translated " baptism by immersion.^^ 
This is an appeal to the Baptist brethren 



118 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



to come to the rescue. They, however, 
. will appreciate the manoeuvre. And 
how absurd for Mr. C, the most unprin- 
cipled and denunciatory assailant of the 
different branches of the Protestant 
Church, that our country has ever seen, 
to talk of persecution. Bishop Bonner, 
and Laud, and Judge Jeffries complained 
of persecution when their proscriptive 
violence met with its desert. 

But was there ever a more preposter- 
ous assertion than this of Mr. C? He 
"doubts not that the reason why he is 
opposed by evangelical Christians, is, he 
has translated " ba'ptism, by immersion'^'' 
which is such a great "offence against 
the decency and the pride of Presbyteri- 
anism." This, then, is the reason why 
Dr. Brantley, Mr. Fuller, and Mr. Great- 
Take, and all other evangelical Baptists 
in this country, and why Mr. Hinton and 
his brethren in England, oppose Mr. 
Campbell? All the pious Baptist breth- 
ren have at once become so inflated with 
"the pride of Presbyterianism," that 
they are angry because Mr. C. translates 
"baptism by immersion." I should think 
this rather a serious charofe. 

After this strong and strange appeal to 
the Christian sympathy of our Baptist 
brethren, — an appeal w^hich contains 
rather serious implications of their hon- 
esty, Mr. C. brings against me an ac- 
cusation of ^^frauciy This shows that 
when he says I am " a knave or a 
simpleton," he does not mean to intimate 
that he has any doubt about the matter. — 
He only states the fact, that the reader 
may form his own opinion. But as for 
Mr. C. himself, he has no doubt that I am 
a " knave," and therefore he charges me 
with " fraud." I suspected that he would 
not except me from the rest of his " Cal- 
'vinistic opponents^'' all of whom " are 
very ignorant persons of their own sys- 
tem, or very great knaves^ But we 
shall permit Mr. Campbell, to tell in his 
own words, the story oi my fraud, so that 
all our readers may be able intelligently 
to afford him all the sympathy which 
such a '■'■ fiagitious^^ iujury is calculated 
to call forth. 

Speaking of myself, Mr. C. says : " I 
have found him misquoting, perverting, 
mutilating, and changing even the quo- 
tations from the New Version, as well 
as boldly asserting most gross and pal- 



pable falsehoods, until, / am iorry to s-ay^ 
I can have no confidence in his honesty 
whatever. / could not, in a volume, ex- 
pose all his efforts at fraud and imposi- 
tionj in his Strictures on the New Ver- 
sion. For example, he represents me as 
studiously expunging from the text of the 
Apocalypse, Chap. 1 : 1 1., 'I am Alpha, 
and Omega,' in order to destroy the Dei- 
ty of the Saviour ; because in that place 
I allege it an interpolation — whilst he 
must have known, had he looked, that 
twice, in the same book, and in the same 
sense, that same phrase is found, in com- 
pany with the Lord Jesus ; Chap. 21:6, 
22; 13. Many such frauds may be de- 
tected on his pages.'''' p. 520. 

This is the only specimen which Mr. 
C gives of this multitude of frauds which 
he " could not expose in a volume:" and 
I unite with him in saying ab uno disce 
omnes. For if I have been guilty of fraud 
in this instance, then my "pages do con- 
tain not a few frauds. But the reader 
must judge between us; and I therefore 
extract here the passage to which Mr. C. 
refers. After remarking that Mr. C. has 
been bolder than the Unitarian Editors 
of the Improved Version, in mutilating 
the word of God, and that he passes off 
these, his mutilations, as though sanction- 
ed by Doddridge, &c., I proceed to say, 

" But this is not the worst of it. He has 
even left out of their (Dr. Doddridge's, 
&c.) version, as he calls it, passages, 
for the genuineness of which they stren- 
uously contend. Take a single speci- 
men. In Rev. 1 : II, (and it will be re- 
collected that Dr. Doddridge was the on- 
ly one of the three doctors who transla- 
ted the Revelation,) Mr. Campbell omits 
' I am Alpha and Omega, the first and 
the last.'' It is on this clause that Dr. 
Doddridge has the following note : ' I 
cannot forbear recording it, that this text 
has done more than any other in the Bi- 
ble, towards preventing me from giving 
up to that scheme which would make our 
Lord Jesus Christ no more than a deified 
creature.^ Yet does Mr. Campbell make 
the reader believe that this text is omit- 
ted by Doddridge. The same thing is 
true in relation to passages contended for 
by the other translators," &,c. Repos. p. 
318. See also Chap. Vl. above. 

Now reader, where do you here find 
any thing of " studiously expunging in 



AND REFUTED. 



119 



order to destroy the Deity of the Sav- 
iour?" Mr. C was afraid to meet the 
above statement, for he durst not contra- 
dict its truth, and feeling* that he ought to 
say something to take off its edge, he in- 
serts an idea that is not in the paragraph, 
in order to shelter himself behind an 
equivocation, in accusing me of fraud. — 
But what is the charge which I here 
bring against Mr. C? It is, that he omits 
this passage, and gives on the title page, 
Doddridge's sanction for the omission, 
not only when Doddridge has not omit- 
ted it, but has strongly contended for its 
genuineness. And if Mr. C. should 
produce twenty texts asserting the same 
thing as the one here referred to, could it 
relieve him from this dreadful imputa- 
tion ? They can have nothing whatev- 
er to do with the facts of the case. And 
his gross attempt to charge me with fraud 
and unfairness in this and in all other in- 
stances, which he pretends to refer to, is 
precisely what might be expected from 
an individual who could first contemplate 
and then perpetrate the crime which has 
called forth the foregoing animadver- 
sions. 

Mr. C. next proceeds to speak of the 
Received Text, and of Wickliffe's and 
other versions ; and also, to assail our 
English version, by asserting that " One 
man like Dr. George Campbell, candid, 
learned, impartial, is, with me, (Mr. C.) 
better authority than the King's ^forty- 
nine^ with the King himself who is said 
to have been the fiftieth, and sometimes to 
have had a casting vote, at least on some 
difficult points^ p. 521. But these scur- 
rilities are a mere evasion of the true is- 
sue. The point is not respecting the 
King's Translation, but respecting Mr. 
Campbell's. 

He then " returns'^ " to the Unitarian- 
ism of the New Version," but does not 
say any thing on the subject. He writes 
only about himself, and of his renouncing 
" at the age of 24, proud, opulent, and 
popular Presbyterianism." He again 
denies his own Unitarianism ; and makes 
the following disclaimer, of which 
(though it has no bearing on the point 
strictly before us,) we shall let him have 
the full benefit. He says : " If I disbe- 
lieved in the existence of the Deity, or the 
personality of the Father, the Son, or 
the Holy Spirit, or in the absolute neces- 



sity and all-sufficiency of his sacrifice for 
our sins, I would avow it in a moment, 
in the presence of Dr. Peters, and Mr. 
Landis, and all the Divines and Colleges 
in America." 

He then proceeds to speak of the 
" spurious readings," " on the subject of 
which, Mr. Landis is, manifestly, not the 
most competent authority in the world ;" 
and says that my " attempts to blast the 
reputation of Griesbach, or to hand him 
over to the Unitarians, is as weak as it is 
wicked," " no man of learning and can- 
dor, known to me, acquainted with Gries- 
bach's labors and character, has ever 
suspected him of Unitarianism." p. 522. 
Now I never asserted that Griesbach 
was a Unitarian, I did aflirm, however, 
that the Unitarians claim him; a fact, 
which, I suppose Mr. C. will not deny. 
I asserted also, that his glaring sanction 
of the shallow neological infidelity of 
Germany, rendered very dubious his 
claim to be a follower of Christ. And it 
is this his scepticism, as well as his erro- 
neous decisions respecting Acts 20 : 28, 
1 Tim. 3 : 16, (fee, which make him an 
acknowledged favorite of the Unitarian 
school. I acknowledge our high indebt- 
edness to him ; but assert that we should 
avail ourselves of his results with cau- 
tion. I do not believe him to have been, 
a Unitarian,* and question, sincerely, 
whether he was as much opposed to the 
Godhead of Christ (neological as he was) 
as Mr. Campbell appears to have been. 
Griesbach has received into his text new 
proofs of the Deity of Jesus, which Mr. 
C. has not inserted. And why ? Though 
I called his attention to this fact in my 
former essay, he has not said a syllable 
on the subject. And where Griesbach 
has shown some hesitation in rejecting 
passages (as in Acts 20 : 28.) Mr. C. 
and the editors of the Improved Version, 
have no hesitation whatever. In regard 
to Griesbach, however, Prof Stuart, after 
Dr. Lawrence, sustains the assertion jin 
my Essay, that " Griesbach's account of 

Dr. Griesbach has asserted the true Godhead of Christ 
more unequivocally than Mr. C. He says : " Atque 
sunt profecto, &c. The arguments and passages of 
Scripture, by which the true Deity of Christ (vera deltas 
Christi,) is established, are both so clear and so numer- 
ous, that I am not able to comprehend how any one 
who grants the Divine authority of the Scriptures, and 
adopts just rules of interpretation can entertain any 
doubts as to the truth of this doctrine. 



120 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



facts is not unfrequently very erroneous^'' 
(not however through design, but from 
human infirmity;) and that the principles 
by which he estimated the value of MSS., 
and of course the genuineness of partic- 
ular readings, are fundamentally errone- 
ousP See Stuart's Letters to Channing, 
p. 85. And in reference to the matter of 
implicitly adopting Griesbach's text (as 
Mr. C. seems to have done except where 
Prof G. has inserted new proofs of the 
Godhead of Christ,) Professor Stuart re- 
marks, that " It may be us-eful to those, 
who are in the habit of attributing so 
much weight to Griesbach^s decisions, to 
know that they are far from being uncon- 
troverted, hy many ef the best critics 
among his own countrymetir p. 86. Mr. 
C. will say, I suppose, that this " attempt" 
of Prof S. " to blast the reputation of 
Griesbach, is as iveak as it is wickedy 
And Prof S. must take heed^ or Mr. C. 
will appoint him to the choAr which I 
once held, and which, for the present, is 
occupied by Dr. J. Pye Smith, of Ho- 
merton. 

But again, I must remind Mr. C. that 
the point here is not whether Griesbach's 
readings can, or cannot be depended 
upon; but, 07i what 'principle Mr. C. 
adopts these readings^ and leaves his fol- 
lowers, (who have no means of investi- 
gating for themselves,) to infer that the 
texts which Griesbach has put into the 
margin, have been rejected by Dr. Dod- 
dridge, &c. 

Mr. C. also represents me as saying, 
that all the alterations contended for do 
not affect essentially any doctrine of the 
Gospel. If I were an author, I should 
not do in respect to Mr. C. as Pope did 
in respect to Warburton — appoint him to 
be the commentator on my works. Pope 
seemed to think that the Bishop under- 
stood, or at least could explain his mean- 
ing better than he could himself I 
doubt, however, whether Mr. C. can thus 
explain mine. In speaking of those who 
contended for introducing into the Eng- 
lish version, the crude and undigested 
emendations of the various editors of the 
Greek text, I asserted that such a proce- 
dure was preposterous : and asked " what 
benefits can possibly accrue from attempt- 
ing it ; especially when it is admitted on 
all hands^ [that is, " by all those who con- 
tend for it,'^ as, doubtless, every one but 



Mr. C. understood me to say,] that no 
doctrine is essentiully affected either by 
rejecting or retaining them." See Rep. 
325, 326. And yet it is upon this silly 
perversion that Mr. C. proceeds as fol- 
lows : " One concession made by Mr. 
Landis himself, shows," &.c. &c. then 
quoting a part of the foregoing passage, 
and perverting it as above shown, he 
says, "According to all the oracles of 
common sense, may I not ask the reader 
to notice how thoroughly Mr. L. has 
refuted his own efforts to fix upon the 
new version an injurious character, by 
the rejection of those passages to which 
he alludes ; when he admits that the 
rejection of all the readings of Mill, 
Griesbach, &:.c. ' essentially affects not 
any doctrine in the book,' &c. Thus 
Mr. Landis has neutralized his own 
anathemas, by affirming that these expur- 
gations cannot essentially affect," &c. p. 
522. 

How fertile is the genius of Mr. C. ! 
First he takes the admission which he 
and his brethren make, and which I had 
referred to them as making, and he 
makes it my " concession ;" then I am 
made to admit it, and finally to affirm 
it. But if I had even admitted and af- 
firmed it, what has this to do with the 
points at issue, and to which reference is 
made above? But Mr. C. had a concealed 
object in view. My exposure sunk the 
reputation of his book very low at the 
West. He wished to bolster up its repu- 
tation; and he could do it in no better 
way than by representing " such a pre- 
sumptuous calumniator as Mr. L." as 
"affirming" that all the alterations and 
mutilations which his work exhibits, do 
not affect the doctrines of the Gospel. 
And hence, he could not refrain from 
this absurd perversion, though he had 
directly under his eye, (on p. 322, and 
as will be seen in Chap. VII. above,) 
the following declaration, and its proof 
extending through three pages: "But 
many of Mr. Campbell's omissions do 
affect the leading doctrines of Chris- 
tianity." Had I misrepresented him in 
this manner, it is impossible to imagine 
to what a pitch his fury would have 
arisen. 

He next returns to his own sentiments 
respecting the Deity of Christ, (which 
we have noticed in Chap. VI.,) and after 



AND REFUTED. 



m 



this, applies to me a passage from Prof. 
Stuart's Letters to Dr. Miller, gives me 
another broadside, charging me with 
*' wantonly accusing him without one 
particle ofproof,^^ gives a brief summary 
of his reply, applies to me a passage 
from Stuart's Letters to Channing ; tells 
Dr. Peters and me that we have " blas- 
phemed " his (Mr. C.'s) " character," tells 
us that we have " violated the laws of 
the States," and closes with a threat of a 
civil prosecution in these words : " It be- 
hooves you to repent immediately^ and 
do works meet for repentance, or per- 
chance you may repent when it is too late. 
A. C." p. 528. And on the cover of the 
Harbinger he says, "I demand justice ; 
and if it be not freely tendered, it may be 
sought more successfully in another 
quarter. A. Campbell." See also Har. 
for 1&40, p. 223. 

A desire to promote the welfare of 
those who had been so fatally led astray 
by Mr. C, and his most wretched transla- 
tion of the New Testament, led me to 
enter upon this controversy. I was fully 
aware of his violent and passionate dis- 
position. But Mr. C. must not think 
that abusive epithets and threats will pre- 
vent the examination of his system. In 
no one instance have I either slandered 
or misrepresented his views; unless he 
entertains views different from those 
which he has published. In the prece- 
ding pages, I have presented all the ex- 
ceptions which he has taken to my Essay, 
and if I have done Mr. C. injustice, he 
need not fear — the public will set the 
matter right. I would gladly have 
spared the reader the disgusting details 
which Mr. C.'s reply is so full of, but I 
could not in justice to myself, or my 
brethren, who are brought into conflict 
with him or his sect. It ousfht to be 
known and understood how he conducts 
his controversies, and with what gross 
expressions he supplies the place of ar- 
gument. 

Since the publication of his reply, he 
has been attacking me with the same low 
scurrility, whenever occasion offers. He 
might have learned before this that such 
things have no effect upon me. They 
do not even lead me to despise him, (as 
he really seems to wish me to do,) and 
to resolve to have nothing further to do 
with such an abusive character: for I am 
16 



actuated in this matter by no hostility to 
Mr. C; but I do confess that I ardently 
desire to bring back to the light of truth 
the souls whom he has led into ruinous 
error. And this shall be my steady aim, 
so long as there is aught occasion for any 
effort that my feeble arm can put forth. 

Several months after the publication 
of his Reply, he issued a piece of sev- 
eral pages, (in the Har. of Feb., 1840,) 
headed " The Calumnies of R. W. Lan- 
disy In this is exhibited the most ridic- 
ulous farce imaginable. He prefaces it 
with saying, " All efforts having failed 
to obtain from Mr. Landis or Dr. Peters, 
any acknowledgm.ent of the false and 
malicious charges printed and published 
both in this country and Great Britain, 
against me : I am now, in justice to my- 
self and the community to which I be- 
long, compelled to appeal to the first 
court having jurisdiction in the case." 
He then complains that Dr. Peters had 
refused to publish in the Repository, the 
scurrilous reply to me which has just 
been presented to the reader. And in 
justification of himself for making such 
a request, he says, '• My Review was too 
personal for their taste — as if Mr. Lan- 
dis had not been personal beyond any 
piece (I) ever printed in any respectable 
review, even in the said Repository it- 
self" " I therefore forward my appeal 
to the Presbytery to which Mr. Landis 
belongs, in hopes that their action in the 
case will make farther proceedings on 
my part unnecessary: — To the Presby- 
tery of Philadelphia, or whatever Pres- 
bytery has spiritual jurisdiction over R. 
W. Landis, Minister of Jeffersonville^ 
Pennsylvania, the appeal of Alexajstder. 
Campbell, of Bethany, Virginia, most 
respectfully and religiously setteth forth 
and petitioneth: — Gentlemejnt: — Be it 
known to you, that I have, in may judg- 
ment, just cause of complaint to Heaven 
and you, against your brother mir^ter, 
Mr. R. W. Landis, of Jeffersonville, 
Pa., because of certain false and mali- 
cious charges printed and published in 
the January and April numbers of the 
American Biblical Repository for 1839, 
calculated to injure my moral and reli- 
gious character," &c. &c. p. 49, 50. 

He then proceeds to alledge the accu- 
sations which I have above noticed ; says 
I have charged him with issuing his work 



122 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED 



as ^^ completed" by Dr. Doddridge, (fee, 
and charges me with " slander, malicious 
and wicked in the superlative degree ; " 
says that his Reply to my Essay is " by 
no means so personal" as my Essay it- 
self; adds some coarse remarks respect- 
ing Dr. Peters, and concludes by de- 
manding " a fair, full, and prompt exam- 
ination of this matter." 

The intention of Mr. C. was to recover 
his standing among his people, by making 
them believe that he had commenced 
process against me ; and that so flagrant 
was the injustice which he had received 
at my hands that even the Presbytery 
took it up. And it did make this impres- 
sion among them to such an extent that 
even a respectable clergyman from the 
Far West, whose congregation was annoy- 
ed by these sectaries, wrote to me to 
know " what disposition Presbytery had 
made of this appeal? " So strongly had 
Mr. C. made the impression upon the 
minds of his followers that my own 
brethren had commenced process against 
me for slandering him, and so loudly had 
his followers boasted of it. To what 
wretched shifts must Mr. C. have beeia 
driven in order to sustain his sinking rep- 
utation ? And then some months after 
this he tells his sect through the Harbin- 
ger, " / leave Mr. Landis in the hands 
of his Presbytery,^^ p. 226, intimating 
that I was undergoing a lengthly and ter- 
rible trial for slandering him. 

Now though this contemptible farce 
on being exposed will be viewed by every 
intelligent man as worthy only of ridi- 
cule, yet to Mr. C.'s followers it was a 
serious affair. Though not one member 
of Presbytery has ever in any way allu- 
ded to the matter, Mr. C. thus made so 
crafty a disposition of his " appeal," by 
mancEUvres which Mrs. Opie would not 
approve, that the souls whom he had de- 
luded, and who had begun to doubt the 
correctness of his doctrines, and of his 
translation, were induced to surrender 
their own judgment in the case, and infer 
that Mr. C. had been slandered, or Presby- 
tery would never have called me to account. 
Nor was even this sufficient to restore 
Mr. C. fully. He also published in his 
Harbinger that Dr. Peters had written 
him a letter apologizing for the appear- 
ance of my Essay ; See Har. p. 95, 96, 
1840. Dr. Peters had, however, provi- 



f dentially preserved a copy of the letter, 
and (so soon as he heard of the vile false- 
hood,) published it in the Repository, and 
covered Mr. Campbell with an infamy 
from which he will never recover. See 
Repos. for 1840, pp. 469--.471. 

In the same vol. of the Har. pp. 221 
— 226, there is another low and scurril- 
ous attack upon Dr. Peters and myself; 
in which, in addition to the expressive 
epithets which Mr. C. had already be- 
stowed upon me, he applies also Goth, 
and Vandal. In this article he also boasts 
exceedingly of his victory over Dr. Pe- 
ters and myself, (for since the appearance 
of my Essay until this time he had never 
before thought about victory, and conclu- 
ded that it was time to "make believe" 
that he thought himself a conqueror,) 
and exhibits the same low management, 
and insincerity in reference to Dr. Pe- 
ters, which he had shown in reference to 
myself in the instances narrated above. 

He is very angry also with the notes 
which Dr. P. added to the Review, and 
in which he pointed out the evasions and 
subterfuges of Mr. C. But, adds he, 
Dr. Peters says nothing respecting the 
Unitarianism of the Campbellites, the 
Unitarianism of the new version, and of 
calling Dr. Doddridge a member of the 
church of Scotland for several editions 
of his book &;c., nor attempts to defend 
what Mr. Landis has written on these 
points; and '■'■his silence on these points 
demonstrates that Mr. Landis is proS" 
trate in the dust'' pp. 225, 226. The 
Campbellites certainly felt indebted to 
Mr. C. for this discovery that I was pros- 
trate in the dust, for none of them had 
ever suspected before that such was the 
fact. Even the infidel Bayle could have 
told Mr. C . that for a contro vertist to boast 
of his victory in debate, was always a sign 
that he felt himself to be in the vocative. 
But even here, Mr. C. has told a "plump 
round" untruth, (as Dr. Mason says.) 
Only turn, reader, if you have the oppor- 
tunity, to the Repository for 1840, pp. 491 , 
and 500, and then say what you think of 
the assertion of Mr. C. that Dr. Peters, 
by his silence assented to the fact that I 
had misrepresented Mr. C. and his sect 
respecting their Unitarianism, and new 
version. Here are the Doctor's words ; 
I quote them to show how little depen- 
dence can be placed on the most solemn 



AND REPUTED. 



123 



asservations of Mr. C. It is more than 
humiliating to be compelled to expose 
such dreadful moral obliquity iii any hu- 
man being. In reply to Mr. C.'s inter- 
rogatories in the Repository, intended to 
evade the subject of the Unitarianism of 
his sect, Dr. Peters remarks, "To all 
these questions the reader will find a sat- 
isfactory answer in Mr. Landis' article, 
p. 305, seq. We can only express our 
surprise thai Mr. C. does 7iot more justly 
appreciate the mass of evidence accumu- 
lated in that article''' "Surely Mr. C. 
needs no longer inquire for the documents 
which authorize the belief that he is not 
a Trinitarian. Then what is he?" p. 
491. This last sentence refers to Mr. 
C.'s disavowal of both "Unitarianism 
and Trinitarianism." Such then is the 
" silence " of Dr. Peters respecting the 
Unitarianism of the Campbellites : "a 
silence which demonstrates that Mr. L. 
is prostrate in the dust.''' 

Now for his '■'-silence''' respecting the 
Translation. After considering all that 
Mr. C. could urge in the Repository in 
defence of his neto version, Dr. Peters, 
admitting for the sake of the argument, 
that all might be even true, makes the 
following remark at the close of this part 
of Mr. C.'s defence: "The reader will 
find on recurring to Mr. Landis' article, 

that, IN RESPECT TO THE TRANSLATION RE- 
FERRED TO, Mr. C. has failed to meet 
the most important points on which his 
work has been exposed to censure. The 
statements of Mr. L., then, appear to us 
to remain not materially affected by the 
reply of Mr. Campbell.^ and the trans- 
lation MUST continue TO BE REGARDED 
AS IT HAS BEEN SINCE IT WAS EXPOSED ON 

OUR PAGES.*' p. 500. Yet these things 
says Mr. C. (with the remarks of Dr. 
Peters directly under his eye,) are nei- 
ther noted nor commented by Dr. Pe- 
ters'' and " as he is always shielding his 
brother Landis, &;c. ; his silence on these 
points triumphantly demonstrates that 
Mr. Landis is prostrate in th"- dust, Dr. 
Peters himself being judge'"' p. 226. 
Surely, comment here, would be worse 
than needless. It sickens my very soul 
to be compelled to expose such hideous 
moral deformity. And it is by such 
means that Mr. C. seems determined still 
to hold his followers in the soul-damning 
delusions which he propagates. 



I might reasonably expect that such 
disgusting details must long ago have 
wearied the patience of the reader : but 
there is one more notice in the Harbin- 
ger which calls for remark. The impor- 
tance which Mr. C. attached to this, and 
the effect which he calculated to produce 
by it, may be estimated by tlie fact that 
he had stricken off a number of sheets 
containing the article, to be circulated 
among those who were not subscribers 
to the Harbinger. It is in Har. 1840, p, 
356, and is headed, " Notice of the Rev. 
R. W. Landis." 

In this '■'■notice,^'' he mentions that he 
had " received a letter from Mr. Landis, 
author of the calumnies and misrepresen- 
tations which appeared in the American 
Biblical Repository of 1839," &c. And 
he proceeds to remark that " this letter 
reminds me., {Mr. C.) of my duties to Mr. 
handis" <^c., '•' and that I did not send 
him those numbers (of the Har.) in which 
he was named and reviewed. His words 
ARE' — ' Recently you have written some 
bitter things against me, (as I am inform- 
ed, and published them in several num- 
bers of the same periodical, together with 
some advice,) and yet have never permit- 
ted me to see a line of them IV Mr. Lan- 
dis THEN proceeds — ' You are aware that 
should I publish the foregoing in a paper, 
it Avould be readily copied into all the 
papers west and south which are adverse 
to you ; but 1 shall not do this, if I can 
procure the numbers of the Harbinger 
without it,' " &c. Mr. C. then publishes 
his clerk's answer to my letter, in which 
he had assured me that he had sent to 
my address Mr. C.'s "replies" to my 
Essay, and his "notices" subsequent to 
that date. 

Mr. C. then proceeds to say, that "in 
no less than two days after mailing his 
(my) letter, he appears in print in the 
Christian Observer of Philadelphia — his 
promise to me to the contrary notwith- 
standing — averring that I had not sent 
him the Harbinger containing my review 
of his Essay ! In a letter dated the 8th 
of April, and published on the 16th, in 
the Christian Observer, addressed to Dr. 
Cleland and Rev. J. C. Stiles, of Ken- 
tucky, of myself he says: ^He did not 
send me the Harbinger containiiig his 
review of my Essay.'' He solicits aid(!) 
from these Kentucky chiefs to assist him 



124 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



in putting down the reformation in Ken- 
tucky, living so far east as he does from 
the theatre of debate." And then refer- 
ring to my expressed intention of refuting 
his system more in extenso than had 
been done in my Essay, he adds, (what 
he will hereafter please not to lose sight 
of,) " We s.hall thank him for such a re- 
futation in extenso : for the hitherto im- 
perfect refutations have only multiplied 
our friends m five-fold ratios. A com- 
plete refutation in extenso might increase 
our strength in seven-fold proportions. 
In Kentucky alone, under the partial re- 
futations of our heresy by Presbyterian 
Doctors, its friends are to Presbyterians, 
perhaps, as three or four to one. Do, 
Mr. Landis, let us have in extenso a com- 
plete refutation of Campbellism!" 

He, then, in order to show "the 2;eal 
and candor of our refuter in extenso^'' 
proceeds to remark, that I, "in a very 
courteous manner," acknowledged his 
clerk's letter, and laid the " blame of for- 
mer failures on the mail arrangements at 
Jeffersonville." And then, by refusing 
to make known to his readers that I had 
been more than a year from Jefferson- 
ville, (and of course had had no occasion 
to think of the frequent failure of the 
mail there for a long time, until the 
clerk's positive assurance that he had sent 
the documents to my address, led me 
thus to explain the fact referred to,) Mr. 
C. thinks that he has an admirable op- 
portunity to represent me as unworthy 
of confidence : and says, " Is this gentle- 
manly, moral, or christian deportment ? 
If so, I have not yet learned the meaning 
of those words." 

Mr. C. soberly intends this for a seri- 
ous impeachment of my veracity, and 
thus designs to lead his followers to infer 
that I had also falsified in my Essay. 
As regards his followers, therefore, it is 
important that it be noticed; otherwise I 
should continue still to treat it as I have 
since its first appearance. In this "no- 
tice of R. W. L." there is an assertion 
that I had, in a private letter, made a 
promise to Mr. Campbell, which I pub- 
licly violated. Now let us examine the 
subject. 

Take notice, then, reader, first of all, 
that the very number of the Christian 
Observer which Mr. C. refers to, and in 
which he says that I violated a promise 



to kim, was received by him directly 
from myself. This, Mr. C. was aware 
of: for I, having received it from the edi- 
tor, with my name written on the margin, 
transmitted it just as it was to the post 
office kept by Mr. Campbell. Mr. C. 
received, and in due time acknowledged 
it in a private letter, with his usual cour- 
tesy/ ; paying me some handsome compli- 
ments for being " the author of such an 
epistle to two of my (Mr. C.'s) most vio- 
lent and reckless abusers in the west;" 
to-wit: Rev. J. C. Stiles and Dr. Cleland. 
Is it very likely, therefore, that I would 
make a promise to Mr. C. and then, after 
so " grossly violating " it in so short a 
time, send to him the very paper contain- 
ing the violation, and, by so doing, polite- 
ly request of him to please expose my 
"duplicity and recklessness?" Surely 
such an extraordinary degree of polite- 
ness is more than I can pretend to lay 
claim to. 

I say nothing about the absurd wrest- 
ing of dates, by which Mr. C. endeavors 
to make out the worst possible case, but 
let us come at once to the "^romsg." 
That the reader may perceive how bind- 
ing, and how strong this promise was, let 
him please to cast back his ey« over the 
quotation which Mr. C. makes from my 
letter "containing it," and then attend 
to what follows. But it seems almost 
sinful to use raillery in exposing such 
turpitude, ludicrous as it is in itself. Mr. 
C. has ventured to avail himself of the 
advantage which might result from the 
despicable art ot falsifying a private let- 
ter. Here are the facts. In the letter 
mentioned by Mr. C, I firt;t refer him to 
Mill. Har. for 1834, vol. V., p, 150, from 
which I make a long extract; and to Har. 
for 1835, vol. VI., p. 67, from which I 
make another extract : both referring to 
his rules of controversial etiquette. I'he 
letter then proceeds as follows : " I think 
you will allow that these extracts are 
made with tolerable accuracy. And yet 
how will my friend, Mr. Campbell, re- 
concile them Avith his subsequent treat- 
ment of me? In Mill. Har. vol. VI., p. 
134, [for 1835, and before I resided at 
Jeffersonville, as Mr. C. well knew,] 
you tabled a pretty serious charge against 
me, and yet never sent me the number 
containing it. And recently you have 
written some bitter things against me, (as 



AND REPUTED. 



125 



I am informed,) and published them in 
several mmibers of the same periodical, 
(together with some advice^) and yet 
have never permitted me to see a line of 
them.." Then follow twelve lines^ con- 
taining a reference also to the Har., (all 
of which Mr. C. has passed over with- 
out note, and pretends to quote my letter 
continuously.) after which, I thus pro- 
ceed : " You are aware that should I pub- 
lish the foregoing [references^ extracts^ 
and remarks^ in a paper, it would be 
readily copied into all the papers west 
and south which are adverse to you ; and 
would give occasion to your opponents 
to say, at least, that you acted very in- 
consistently. But I shall not do this, if 
I can procure the numbers of the Har- 
binger without it, as your not sending 
them may have been an oversignt," &c., 
&c. Here is the letter, and the reader 
will see how Mr. C, to answer his ends, 
has made it assert what he knew it did 
not assert. I had told him that I would 
not publish the "foregoing" extracts, 
comments, &c. He, omitting all such 
references, asserts the existence of a pro- 
mise which was not in the letter, that he 
might fabricate an occasion to impeach 
my candor. I say nothing of his equally 
foolish act of pretending to quote my let- 
ter continuously. 

Thus much for the promise: now for 
its violation^ as exhibited in the Obser- 
ver. He quotes, (I should say pretends 
to quote,) as follows, my letter therein 
published: "He did not send me the 
Harbinger containing his review of my 
Essay." This he calmly and deliber- 
ately asserts to be an expression of mine, 
written by me for Dr. Cleland and Rev. 
J. C. Stiles. Now here follows the pas- 
sage which precedes the clause given by 
Mr. C, I give it verhatipi, et literatim, 
et punctuatim, just as it was published : 
" But having, in the preparation of the 
Essay, taken the utmost care not to mis- 
represent the language or the sentiments 
of Mr. Campbell in a single instance, I 
was well assured that he complained 
without reason, of my 'slandering and 
misrepresenting' him. So soon, there- 
fore, as I was informed that he wished 
to reply to me in the Repository, I wrote 
to the Editor, stating that *If Mr. Camp- 
bell thinks that I have slandered him, I 
^think that by all means he should be 



permitted to disabuse the public mind 
through the same medium by which he 
has been slandered.' He did not send 
me the * Harbinger ' containing his ' Re- 
view^ of my Essay," &;c.* This is the 
passage ; and from such a connexion 
does Mr. Campbell take the clause upon 
which he predicates his silly charge 
against me. 

If Mr. C. could have even doubted, 
whether the words in the concluding 
part of the passage were ad literam a 
part of my letter to Dr. Peters, ought 
not the entire absence of the marks of 
quotation after the word "slandered" 
have led him to suspect, at least, that the 
words might truly, (from that circum- 
stance,) contain a summary of the rea- 
sons alleged by me to Dr. Peters ? and 
if he had intended to act with fairness, 
would he not have told his readers that 
"a new subject, as it seems to me, ought 
to commence at this sentence of the par- 
agraph, though the absence of quotation 
marks would seem to indicate that Mr. 
Landis intended to intimate that the idea 
in this sentence also was expressed in 
his letter to Dr. Peters." Such certain- 
ly would have been the course of any 
truth-loving man. But Mr. C. not only 
does not do it, but tears it from its con- 
nection, in order to represent me as guilty 
of violating a promise which he knows 
that I never made. 

But it is time to close this review of 
the Campbellite controversy : and I shall 
proceed to do so, after I have briefly re- 
ferred to a topic or two. 

In the concluding part of the notice 
last referred to, above, Mr. C. mentions 
the fact of a private letter or two passing 
between us. He mentions also that he 
has asked me by letter, how I could 
" imagine that he could have any respect 
for" me ; and he adds : " In the same 
epistle, I (Mr. C.) observed, ' I go for dis- 
cussion, full and free ; I will publish 
your pieces in the Harbinger, if you will 
have my replies published in all the pa- 
pers in which you seek to have yours 
published." The reply to this letter, 
says Mr. C. (speaking of my reply to it,) 
"is decidedly the most scurrilous and 
vulgar document received in my office^ 
[in this, he of course, includes not what 

* When I wrote to Dr. Peters I had not seen Mr. 
Campbell's Harbinger containing his Review. 



126 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED 



has been sent from his office,] within my 
memory. It has secured its apparent ob- 
jects. Its vulgarity and rudeness, the 
author, I suppose, rationally enough cal- 
culated, would prohibit its appearance in 
any religious or moral periodical devoted 
to Reformation, and would terminate the 
chances of any agreement between him 
and me for such a discussion as he would 
seem to have in view. He would pre- 
tend to have a desire to appear on my 
pages ; but he took good care to secure 
a refusal by placing himself, clearly and 
unequivocally, amongst those, whom re- 
spect for the present state of civilization, 
morality, and Christian decorum, per- 
emptorily exclude from our pages." 
p. 359. 

If any one can read this, in connex- 
ion with the exhibitions of Mr. C.'s 
" calmness and self-possession," referred 
to already, in the course of this review, 
and not laugh heartily, he deserves a pre- 
mium for such a control over his risibili- 
ties. To think of Mr, C, and on the 
pages of his Harbinger, speaking of mo- 
rality and civilization ! and condemning 
scurrility ! Could there be a more stri- 
king illustration of the homely old Eng- 
lish proverb, which speaks of Satcm re- 
proving sin ? It is equal to the story of 
the clown, who, in a terrible fright, said 
that " Satan had appeared unto him, and 
ihreate7ied, that if he did not behave liim- 
self more as a Christian ought to do, he 
would at once drag him down to the in- 
fernal regions." If Mr. C. could induce 
me to use abuse, misrepresentation, or 
scurrility, he would glory in it ; he might 
then, with apparent fairness, turn aside 
from the true issue. 

If I ever had been guilty of employ- 
ing scurrility against Mr, C, I should 
at once own that it is unworthy both of 
myself and of my cause ; although I 
might, at the same time, see no reason 
whatever, to question the propriety of its 
application. But though Mr. C. speaks 
of my letter as so indecent, &,c, 6lc.^ he 
'has not quoted a single line by which to 
sustain the accusation. This, in Mr. C.'s 
case, is all the evidence which is requi- 
site, fully to prove that he did not believe 
the assertion which he has made. 

But I will show you, reader, what Mr. 
C. here means by scurrility, and what 
his object is-, in thus affirming what he 



could not believe. In my letter referred 
to by him, I tell Mr. C. that I give him 
full liberty to publish my private letters, 
(as he had represented them to his read- 
ers, as contradicting what I had publish- 
ed,) and I expressed a hope that he would 
do it. I address him, I admit, somewhat 
sharply in this letter, and it required an 
effort to avoid treating him with the most 
undisguised contempt. But the follow- 
ing is the concluding part of it, compre- 
hending, I admit, a good deal of vulgar- 
ity and scurrility, but truly, I do not 
think any one will, upon the strength of 
these passages, impute these things to me. 
Addressing Mr. C. I say : " The follow- 
ing is the third paragraph of your letter, 
and upon it, I shall found a proposal, 
which you will please either assent to, in 
unambiguous language, or in like man- 
ner reject. If you choose, you can do it, 
by a private letter, which I shall acknowl- 
edge publicly, or you can employ your 
Harbinger. You say to me, " No man 
who fears God, could so wantonly assail 
the moral character of any man, as you 
have assailed mine. You are determin- 
ed to persist in it, and say you can and 
will prove your allegata. Go on then, 
sir, prove them ; and ask your brother 
Peters for as many pages for me, in re- 
ply, and then we shall see how your 
proof goes. But, sir, you know how 
easy it is to prove to a packed jury, what 
you please. Still, 1 know you can never 
prove before God or man, that you are 
not a wilful slanderer of A. Campbell." 
After making this quotation from Mr. 
C, my letter proceeds, as follows:— 
" Here then, is my proposal, I endorse 
for the truth of every position assumed 
in my Essay, on Campbellism, published 
in the Repos. of 1839. Now you your- 
self, may pack the jury. And I hereby 
call upon you to select any proposition or 
propositions, advanced in any part of my 
Essay ; stated in my own words — or, if 
in your words, fairly stated, and sustain- 
ed by quotation ; and give me but six 
pages of the Harbinger for sustaining 
each such proposition, (and you can take 
as many pages as you wish in reply,) 
and we shall see whether you ' know that 
I cannot prove, before God and man, that 
I am not a wilful slanderer of A. Camp- 
bell* Though you give me a negative 
to prove, yet I shall not object. So 



AND REFUTED. 



127 



please to make your selection of any, or 
as many propositions clearly stated, and 
intelligibly expressing these 'base and 
malicious slanders,' ' viperous calum- 
nies,' " &.C. ifec. And after quoting 
twenty other eipressiofis of a like nature 
with these, and some of them much more 
vulgar, I add, " Select the proposition, 
or propositions containing these or any 
of them: state them in the Harbinger, 
with their proof, in connexion with these 
two paragraphs of my letter, and grant 
me but six pages space to sustain each, 
and you yourself, being judge, your own 
^packed jur]/ shall decide to whom be- 
longs these 'classical epithets.'" 

Now reader, can you tell why Mr. C. 
pronounced these parts of my letter too 
vulgar, &c., to be admitted into liis Har- 
binger ? (for it is but these two para- 
graphs that I ask him to publish,) There 
is no vulgarity about them, except what 
I have quoted from Mr. C. Why then 
should he tell this orlarino- untruth 1 For 
this reason alone : He was afraid to meet 
my proposition to discuss these alleged 
'^ slandersj^^ &c., and therefore gives a 
false reason for rejecting it. If this be 
not so, let Mr. C. now accept oj my of- 
fer^ and open his columns. 

My last letter to Mr. C. in reference 
to the controversy is dated Jan. 12, 1841, 
and with a few quotations from it, we 
shall terminate this Review. As it was 
my intention to present a fuller exposi- 
tion of Mr. C.'s system, than was fur- 
nished in my Essay, I had written re- 
questing him to inform me where I could 
procure all the volumes of the Harbin- 
ger and Christian Baptist; and also again 
requesting him to furnish me with a sum- 
mary of his views respecting those points 
which he had charged me with misrep- 
resenting. After informing me where 
his works could be procured, he proceeds 
with his usual politeness to charge me 
with misrepresenting him &c., and offers 
me a copy of his "Christian System," 
(a work just then issued from the press,) 
provided I would append it all to my 
present work. These and other things 
which he mentions, are referred to in the 
subjoined extracts from my reply to his 
letter, of which, I should not publish so 
much, were it not that it notices some 
things which Mr. C. has referred to re- 
peatedly, and which ought to be no- 



ticed by me before closing this Review. 

" I thank you for your information re- 
specting the Christian Baptist and Mill. 
Harbinger. 

" Your idea, that it is necessary for me 
to read every thing which you have writ- 
ten, before I can be able to form a correct 
estimate of your views on a given sub- 
ject, is illustrative of that illogical pecu- 
liarity of intellect which characterizes all 
your speeches and writings. Had I pro- 
fessed to be convinced of the correctness 
of your sentiments by the perusal of but 
one hundreth part of what I have read 
of your writings, you would not have 
doubted the sincerity of my convictions 
merely because I had not perused every 
thing that you have ever written. Many 
of your followers profess to be convinced 
that your doctrine is true merely by hear- 
ing a single address of yours, — while 
they who hear an address and disapprove. 
of your doctrine are forsooth " not quali- 
fied to do so;" but ought, I suppose, 
first to hear every address that you have 
ever made ! 

" Dr. John Taylor of Norwich, after 
publishing his Pelagian Commentary on 
Romans, gave a copy of it to Mr. New- 
ton. A few weeks afterwards he called 
on Mr. N. and asked whetlier he had 
read it. Mr. Newton replied, * I have 
turned it over.' ' Turned it over ! ' says 
Dr. T., * Turned it over ! And is this the 
way you treat a book which has cost me 
so much time and labor ? You ought 
sir, to have read the whole of it ! ' Mr. 
Newton replied, ' Sir, when I have eaten 
the first mouthful of a joint of meat, and 
find it tainted ; it is not necessary that 
I should eat through to the bone before I 
shall be justified in pronouncing the joint 
to be tainted.' This is the text and ser- 
mon : your own ingenuity will suggest 
the application. 

" Your remarks in reference to fur- 
nishing a ' Compendium ' of your views, 
are not satisfactory. The ' Christian 
System ' has been but lately published, 
and I have not seen it. This you take 
for granted, for you offer me a copy. 
And taking this for granted, as you do, 
what means your question 'whether I 
will promise to append it to my trea- 
tise, provided you send me a copy ? ' 
My volume will be small, and issued in 
a cheap form, so that it may be within 



i2d 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 



reach of all. Yours may be even larger 
than my book itself. And surely it is 
no better than trifling, to desire an an- 
swer to such a question under such cir- 
cumstances. First send me the sheets of 
your volume, or tell me vi^here I can pur- 
chase it, if you really desire an answer 
to your query. If you are in earnest, 
and deem the book too large, mark such 
passages as clearly express your views 
on Faith, Regeneration, Baptism, Justi- 
fication, Repentance, and Remissioft of 
Sin. Do this, and send me the unbound 
sheets thus marked. 

"Though I have never read all of 
your ^Christian Baptist^ and \^]Mill. 
Har.,^ yet I readily agree with you that 
it is quite ' an easy thing ' out of those 
volumes to frame a system * for the Uni- 
tarian, Pelagian, and Arminian ; ' and 
that ' out of them a person of half my 
ingenuity could easily make you any 
thing short of a Mohammedan.' 

" You have several times said to me 
that I have already, by what I have writ- 
ten against your views, greatly added to 
the number of your friends, and that if I 
vn'ite again you shall ' presume upon a 
still more abundant harvest.' And yet 
you have repeatedly avowed a serious 
determination to prosecute me for these 
very writings.^ Have you then so many 
friends that you will prosecute a man for 
adding to their number ? But Mr. C, 
the correct design of such insinuations 
cannot be mistaken, — I understand you 
fully. 

" And now again, before this corres- 
pondence closes, I would remind you 
that I have been well acquainted with 
you and your system for many years." 
" As to your threats of prosecution, I do 
not consider them worth a thought." 
" Your own heart will assure you that 
this is not an idle intimation. But yet, I 
again seriously profess to you, that in 
this argument / do not wish prejudice or 
passion any more to intermingle, though 
you have blended them together therein 
so largely already. I should prefer to 
write about you, as about an abstract ex- 
istence, and to refer to your views with- 
out any reference whatever to yourself 
God knows, that in this matter, I desire 
your benefit, and not your destruction. 
No one would rejoice more than I, to see 



you a truly devoted follower of Jesus. 
But it will be your own fault if the dis- 
cussion assume a more popular and ar- 
gumentum ad hominem form, than that 
in Biblic. Repos. for April, July and 
October of 1838. Will you then fur- 
nish me with a summary compend of 
your views, and also with what you have 
written against me. I care not for all 
the abuse you have lavished upon me in 
your ' Reviewl &c. &c.; it weighs with 
me not one feather. And were you to 
exhaust the whole vocabulary of Bil- 
lingsgate, it would only lead me to smile 
anew at the idea of your refuting my 
arguments in this way. 

" I am sorry to see a disposition on 
your part, to withhold from me the num- 
ber of the Harbinger which I requested. 
How easy to have told your clerk to 
mail for me, (when you learned that it 
had not reached me,) another copy, instead 
of telling me, that, having ordered it 
already, if it did not reach me I must do 
without it. I promise that whatever you 
have therein said, I will pot ''prosecute' 
you for it; and am willing to extend the 
promise so as to include in it every thing 
you may say of me hereafter." 

Mr. C. neither replied to this letter,* 
nor sent me the desired Compend. Hence, 
in order to avoid misrepresenting him, I 
have been obliged to extract from his 
works so largely as I have done in the 
preceding chapters. 

It is a peculiarly unfortunate circum- 
stance, that a discussion of principles and 
doctrines is so seldom conducted without 
degenerating into personalities. When 
my controversy with this sect begun, I 
published a series of " calm didactic es- 
says," which Mr. C. briefly reviewed, 
and immediately commenced a low, scur- 
rilous attack upon me ; and in a mere 
matter of Scripture criticism, has ac- 
cused me of ignorance, stupidity, and 
knavery. This certainly was a very 
promising beginning. Then, when my 
Essay, (in which was a calm and labored 
statement of facts, every one of which, 
relating to Mr. C.'s doctrines and New 
Version, was strictly true,) he replied to 
me with the most rude and coarse per- 



* His clerk received and acknowledged it, and promis. 
ed to lay it before Mr. C, who wastben absent from 
home. 



AND REPUTED. 



129 



sonaKties. I cannot consent to discuss 
with Mr, C. the subject of my " ignor- 
ance and stupidity," however much he 
may insist upon it ; but shall leave him 
to settle that matter with my biographer. 
But with regard to other matters, such 
as his accusations of misrepresentation, 
calumny, falsehood, &c., I have felt called 
upon by a sense of duty to repel them 
by a plain statement of the facts of the 
case, and have left the reader to decide. 
The multitude in general, so identify the 
advocate of a cause with the cause itself, 
that no writer can do his cause justice, 
and let such accusations pass unnoticed, 
I know it may be said that such accusa- 



tions, coming from Mr. Campbell, cannot 
possibly do any one an injury ; and this 
may be so among those who are not his 
follo\^ers ; but with those who are, (and 
it is for such in general that I write,) the 
case is otherwise. Had it not been for 
this, I should never have obtruded my- 
self so much upon the reader, as I have 
been constrained to do in this chapter. 
These things will, I am persuaded, in 
the estimation of the candid reader, jus- 
tify the course which I have thought it 
necessary to pursue, in noticing so mi- 
nutely whatever Mr. C. has advanced 
with the intention of impeaching my 
veracity. 



17 



CONCLUSION OF THE WORK. 



With regard to the fundamental principle 
of Mr. C.'s system, we have in chap. VI. de- 
monstrated that it is strictly and perfectly So- 
cinian. Mr. C, with the greatest self-com- 
placency, propounds this principle as a new 
and important discovery, (see Preface to his 
Christianity Restored,"^ and seems unconscious 
that it was ever befor-e entertained in modern 
times. But in a passage which we have quo- 
ted (in chap, VI. sec. I.) from the Polish So- 
cinians, we find the same principle stated, in 
the very words of Mr. C, as the great funda- 
mental principle of their school. Crellms, (in 
the passage there quoted,) after referring to the 
testimony that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of 
God, and the proof that Jesas himself gave of 
it, says : " No one can believe that Jesus is the 
Christ, the Son of God, unless he, at the same 
time, believes his whole doctrine to be divine. 
And hence this is the summary of the Christian 
belief and profession, and is stated in the Sa- 
cred Scriptures as the mark of being the disci- 
ples of Christy Mr. C, therefore, has gone 
back to this old latitudinarian School, (whose 
principles have long since been a thousand 
times exploded,) and wishes to pass off upon 
American Christians its fundamental principle 
as the religion of Jesus Christ. This he de- 
clares to be the great Gospel principle of 
" Union, Communion, and Co-operation,'' and 
he deals out the most unmeasured denuncia- 
tion and proscription of all, as bigotted, intol- 
erant, and sectarian, who will not subscribe to it. 

Before closing this discussion, I would 
therefore kindly appeal to Mr. C. in relation to 
this subject. I ask him, then. Is such a course 
' reasonable 1 Is it reasonable to allow to men 
' who, to say the least, have as closely and as 
prayerfully studied their Bibles as ever he has 
done, no alternative but to be denounced as 
enemies to the pure religion of the New Tes- 
tament, or to go back to the old Socinian 
scheme 1 — A scheme erected upon an open re- 
nunciation of every thing which the church of 
God has ever regarded as fundamental. If the 
doctrine of Christ's expiatory sacrifice is 
fundamental, (and Mr. C. admits that it is,) 



the doctrine of his proper Deity is equally so j 
and no well-balanced and logical mind can,' 
with any degree of consistency, embrace the 
former, and reject the latter. And must not a 
principle, therefore, which will lead us to re- 
cognize as christians men who virtually reject 
Christ as a Saviour, in every proper sense of 
that word, be really and fundamentally errone- 
ous 1 I purposely omit here any remark upon 
the sheer Socinianism of Mr. C.'s views on 
other subjects, (as, for example, respecting the 
Holy Spirit, and his office- work in regener- 
ation, concursion, and sanctification,) and 
would speak of his fundamental principle alone. 
I would calmly and kindly tell Mr. C. that 
this system which he advocates cannot stand 
the test of a close examination. In this 
country it must be abandoned. And if^ this 
discussion were not already so protracted, I 
would show Mr. C. how he has, in his con- 
troversy with me, virtually abandoned his great 
leading principles, while, with an inconsistency 
rarely surpassed, he professes still to retain 
them. It will do him no discredit to stop and 
re-examine his first principles^ It will do him 
no injury practically to test the truth of the 
Blessed Comforter's influence in convicting of 
sin, and regenerating the soul. He will not, 
I trust, suspect that I do it to exacerbate, 
when I say that Mr. Campbell has given no 
evidence of a practical acquaintance with this 
momentous truth ; and that the evidence points 
plainly the other way. In making this re- 
mark, I refer not to his treatment of me in 
this controversy. He may have thought that 
I intended to injure him, or was not actuated 
by a desire to save his followers and himself 
from ruinous error. And under this impres- 
sion, may have written as he did. What he 
has said of me has not angered my feelings 
towards him ; and were I conscious of being 
under the influence of any feelings of resent- 
ment in this controversy, I should even now 
throw this whole manuscript into the fire 
instead of sending it to the press. As a man 
and fellow citizen of our Republic, I respect 
him, As an advocate of the great principles- 



CONCLUSION. 



131 



of the Temperance Reform, and as a bold 
and fearless asserter of human rights, I shall 
long revere his memory. And these feelings 
preponderate in my bosom strongly and contin- 
ually; but they do not blind me to his unfair- 
ness in controversy, his misrepresentations of 
the truth, and his unjustifiable abuse of public 
confidence by means of his New Version ; to 
say nothing of his errors on doctrinal subjects. 
But yet I confess that I cvLn-Coriceive how even 
a good man, by yielding to pride of intellect, 
an ardent temper, and a love of disputation 
and consequent love of victory, may have been 
led into such mists^kes : — but I canTwt conceive 
how one who has ever felt the plague of his ov;n 
lieart, and has ohtained^ mercy, can speak cf the 
influence of the Blessed Spirit of God in the 
great loork of regensraiioii, as Mr. C. has done. 
I pretend not to look into his heart ; but from 
what he has written on this subject, together 
with his " Advice to Young Converts," &c., I 
am led to the solemn conclusion, that Mr. C. 
is an utter stranger to a renewal of heart, I 
cannot, cannot believe that he has ever been 
born again. 

If he would abandon those views, (the 
ruineus tendency of which he cannot but 
have seen from their effects,) what multitudes . 
could he direct to the Lamb of God ? And 
how glorious would be the triumph of divine 
grace, would he but come as a little child, and 
learn of Jesus, — would he but come and rely 
alone upon that righteousness by which the 
ungodly are justified ; and yield to the saving 
influences of that Spirit by which the heart is 
regenerated, and the soul rendered meet to be 
a partaker of the inheritance of the Sons of 
God*? Then would his name be held in 
-everlasting remembrance, and thousands call 
him blessed when Messiah comes to claim his 
inheritance, and make up his jewels. But 
how sad to contemplate the reverse ! And 
hereafter to look back upon one who could 
have accomplished so much for the glory of 
God, and for the salvation of souls, as a mere 
compounder and retailer of the dregs of So- 
cinian errors, instead of the healthful and sa- 
ving virtues of the word of life 1 As the 
leader of an insignificant sect, whose life and 
energies have been spent in the abortive at- 



tempt to intermingle the darkness of death 
with the lamp of life ! — to reconcile light and 
darkness, and God and Mammon! 

What is done by Mr. C. in this matter, 
must be done quickly. And it is my humble 
and my fervent prayer that he may be led to 
adopt such a course in reference to it as will 
leave no room for sad and unavailing retro- 
spection in a dying hour ; or when Messiah 
comes to judge the world, and to render to 
every one according as his work shall be. 

To Mr. C.'s followers, I must also add one 
word at parting. I would entreat them, as 
well as all those who have been led astray by 
hearkening t© the advocates of this ill-dio-ested 
and pernicious scheme, not to suffer their 
minds to be influenced in favor of it, by the 
consideration that many have embraced its 
doctrines. They are suited to the corrupt 
and unchanged heart. Hence it is not to be 
wondered at, that those fall in with it, who 
are unwilling to embrace the eelf-denying doc- 
trines of the Gospel. 

I would entreat them also calmly to cast 
their eyes over the brief sketch of this system, 
comprised in the foregoing pages, and then se- 
riously ponder the question, whether they are 
willing to risk the interests of their never-dy- 
ing souls upon principles so entirely subversive 
of the word of God ? This matter must be de- 
cided before long. Death is at the door, and 
the soul's eternal interests are at stake. I ap- 
peal to the consciences of those whom I ad- 
dress, and ask confidently, whether clearer 
proof can be offered on any subject, than is 
here furnished, of the radical unsoundness of 
the entire system of Campbellism 1 I call not 
upon them to subscribe to any particular system. 
of Christian doctrine ; but I do entreat them, 
that, without any longer tampering with the 
dreadfully corrupt version (for so I cannot but 
esteem it) of the New Testament, issued by 
Mr. C, they will take the word of God, and 
examine for themsalves the principles which 
we have here exposed, and their tendency. 
Let this be done with fervent prayer, and a 
humble reliance on the Spirit of God, agreea- 
bly to his own directions in Prov. 2 : 3 — 9, 
and his aid will not be withheld. In matters 
of this kind, call no man master. 



THE END . 



APPENDIX. 



NOTE A. 

Referred, to Chapter IV., Sec. IL, page 46. 

In further illustration of the topic here discussed, and in reference to its practical bearing, I 
would present an extract or two from a golden little treatise by the Rev. T. H. Skinner, D. D., 
entitled ^^ Aids to Preaching and Heo^ringP 

"There is a way to repent. Repenting is something to be done in the use of means and 
endeavors, and not otherwise. 

" Repenting, or turning to God, is a state of mind which a man cannot bring himself into 
by one mere volition. He cannot repent simply by resohdng or saying within himself, / wiVL 
repent. That resolution may fix his mind on repenting, and be the beginning of a series of 
mental exercises which will result in his repentcoace ; but his repentance is not its imme- 
diate sequent, any more than a man's becoming pleased, or pensive, or affected in any way, is 
the immediate result of a vohtion to become so affected. If a man determine that he will be in 
any frame of mind whatsoever, he does not find himself in that frame as soon as he forms the de- 
termination ; he finds himself using the means — the necessary volitions and exertions, in order 
to get himself into it ; he finds his thoughts and affections employed about those objects which 
have a tendency to produce the desired frame : in this way, and not otherwise, he fulfills his 
purpose. If a man would revive in his heart a lively affection for an absent friend, the affec- 
tion does not instantly glow in his breast, as the immediate effect of voUtion; it may exist 
there very quickly, but not until he has given some thoughts to the absent person's image and 
excellencies. Thus it is in respect to repentance : it cannot be experienced by the mind in 
any other way than by the mind's action and exercise towards those things which have a ten- 
dency to produce repentance. These are the things the mind must address itself unto, and 
employ itself about, in fulfilling the obligation to repent and turn to God. If a man, when 
commanded to repent, would obey that command, these are the things he undertakes in order 
to obey it ; for in the nature and necessity of the case, it cannot be obeyed in any other way. 
We are sometimes much in earnest when we are urging men to immediate repentance, to ob- 
tain from them a promise to do what we press upon them ; but if they give us a promise, it 
amounts only to this, that they will employ their minds about those awful and holy objects of 
which repentance in the soul is the impress and counterpart. And, perhaps, if instead of ex- 
acting a promise, we would give our whole labor to the business of making these objects stand 
out before them in their grand importance and excellence, we should be more likely to gain our 
point. 

"Perhaps these observations may be regarded by some in the light of mere assertions: to 
myself they are full of evidence ; and I cannot but think they must appear so to all who wHl 
give them due consideration. It strikes me as hardly needing more than correct statement to 
produce conviction, that the mind, to be justly affected by things without itself, must have 
those things present to its thoughts and contemplations ; and I have only been inculcating 
this principle in respect to repenting and turning to God. All I have said is, that in order to 
lepent, the objects that work repentance in the mind must be thought of and considered ; — 
that this is truly the way to repent — and can any one doubt it? If testimony from Scripture 
be demanded, many other passages besides that of our prophet [Hosea 5: 4.] are explicit. 
David shows us that there is a way to repent, and to some extent what that way is, when he 
says, ' I thought on my ways, and turned my feet to thy testimonies' — and Ezekiel, in chap, 
18 : 28, ' Because he considereth and turneth away from his wickedness, he sh.all save his 
soul alive.' pp. 256 — ^259. 



134 



APPENDIX. 



" If it now be asked whether I am not denying the obligation to immediate repentance 1 I 
answer, by no means ; unless the term immediate be used in this case absurdly. If by imme- 
diate repentance is meant repentance without even thinking, let me be understood as opposing 
it ; but if it import that nothing must precede that occupation of the mind which is indispen- 
sable to repentance, and nothing intervene between such an occupation and the result it con- 
vtemplates, then I claim to be thought in favor of immediate repentance. Undoubtedly all men 
should love God immediately ; that is, do whatever is implied in loving God without any de- 
lay ; — do it instantly ; and thus, as to repenting of sin, and every other modification of love, 
or instance of obedience. But if a distinction be made between loving God, and what is in- 
dispensable in order to loving him, and the design of the epithet immediate be to exclude the 
latter, then do I pronounce the re|0[uieition of the former, the requisition of an absolute impos- 
sibUity. pp. 238, 239. 

" It may be objected that we give license to sin by allowing that any thing may be done be- 
fore repentance. But if nothing is allowed to be done which is not in order to repentance^ 
and without which repentance would be an impossibility, then such allowance, instead of being 
a license to sin, is but the necessary means of deliverance from sin. Besides, can that be 
evil which has a direct tendency to good 1 Can that be unlawful without which duty cannot 
be done ? Can that be contrary to the commandment which is absolutely necessary in order to 
the fulfillment of the commandment 1 Nay, the commandment itself includes and requires it. 
Universally and necessarily, when a command to do something is given, the things indispen- 
sable to the doing of the main thing, are as much required as the main thing itself When 
a master commands a servant to perform an errand, he commands him to use whatever means 
may be necessary to its performance. When an instructor commands a pupil to learn a les- 
son, he requires, at the same time, all the pre-requisite conning and seclusion. This is so 
evident, that no argument could make it more certain. It is equally evident that when God 
conanands repentance, he commands also whatever may be indispensable to repentance. So 
that, when a sinner considers his ways, and turns away from them, and meditates on the evils 
of sin as a transgression against God, and calls to mind the infinite claims of God to his su- 
preme love, and does all this in order to, and as included in, true repentance, he is not rebel- 
ling against the commandment, but falling in with its scope and intention." pp. 263, 264. 

We should like to trM:isfer also to our pages Dr. Skinner's reply to other exceptions whick 
have been taken to this view of the subject, but our limits forbid, and we must refer the 
reader to the .treatise itself 



NOTE B . 

Referred to Chapter IV., Sec. IV., page 60. 



In illustration of the views I have given of the work of the Holy Spirit, I would offer a 
few sentences here, from the late work of the venerable Dr. Chalmers, on Romans. The 
passages quoted are from the " Introductory Lecture.^^ 

" The external revelation," says he, " is completed. But, for the power of beholding aright 
the truths which it sets before us, we are 'just as dependent upon the Holy Ghost as the apos- 
tles of old were. His miraculous gifts, and His conveyances of additional doctrine are now 
over. But his whole work in the Church of Christ is not near over. He has shed all the 
light he ever VjiU do over rthe field of revelation. But he has still to open the eyes of the blind ; 
and, with every individual of the human race, has he to turn him from a natural man who 
cannot receive the things of the Spirit, to a spiritual man, by whom alone these things can be 
spiritually discerned. 

•' There is with many amongst us, an undervaluing of this part of the Christian dispensa- 
tion. The office of the Holy Ghost as a revealer, is little adverted to, and therefore little pro- 
ceeded upon in any of our practical movements. We set ourselves forth to the work of read- 
ing and understanding the Bible, just as we would any human composition — and this is so far 
■^^^—for it is only when thus employed, that we have any reason to look for the Spirit's agency 



APPENDIX. J25 

in our behalf. But surely, the fact of his agency being essential; is one, not of speculative, 
but of practical importance — and ought to admonish us that there is one peculiarity by which 
the book of God stands distinguished from the book of a human author, and that is, that it is 
not enough it should be read with the spirit of attention, but with the spirit of dependence 
and of prayer. 

" The Spirit guides unto all truth, and all truth m to be found in the Bible. He gives us 
that power of discernment, by which we are wisely and intelligently conducted through all its 
passages. His office is not to brighten into additional splendor the sun of revelation, or even 
to clear away clouds that may have gathered over the face of it. His office is to clarify our 
organs of perception, and to move away that film from the spiritual eye, which, till he begins 
to operate, adheres with the utmost obstinacy in the case of every individual of our species." 
— "That veil, which was, at one time, on the face of Moses, is now upon the heart of the un- 
converted Israelites, The blindness is in their minds, and they are in darkness, just because of 
this veil being yet untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament. When they turn to 
the Lord, there will be no change made either in the Old Testament or in the New — but this 
veil, which is now upon their faculties of spiritual discernment, will simply be taken away. 
The unconverted of our own country, to whom the Gospel is hid, do not perceive it, not be- 
cause there is a want of light in the Gospel, which would need to be augmented, but because 
the God of this world hath blinded their own minds, lest the light of the glorious gospel of 
Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." pp. 9 — 11. See also p. 12 — 14. 

How absurd is it, therefore, to attribute the removal of this " veU" or " blindness," to the 
bare truth itself! as Mr. C. and his adherents do.- 




■PSfwy?*"'^?* 



6 4 6 ^<j 6 ■•■*■ 



^^-^o^RABBAH TAKEN: 





OR 




THE THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM 




OF 



REV. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, 




EXAMINED AND nSPUTSD. 



BY EGBERT W. LANDIS, 

PASTOR OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, BETHLEHEM, NEW JERSEY. 



"I have fought agdnst Rabbah, 
And have taken the City of Waters," 

2 Sam. 12: 27. 



CINCINNATI: 
WILLIAM H. MOORE & CO 

NO. 110, M-AIN STBEET, 

B2T. THIHD ABD JOtTHTH. 

1844. 










Wtl. H. MOORE. Cincinnati. I^AKg H. NEWMAIT, Nctt- York. 

Wm. H. MOORE & CO. 



EAST SIDE, BETWEEN THIRD AND FOURTH, 

Offer, at Wlioksale or Retail, a complete assortment of THEOLOGICAL, CLASSICAL, 
MISCELLANEOUS, and SCHOOL BOOKS, and STATIONERY, at lower prices than they 
can be purchased elsewhere, west of the Atlantic Cities. 



THEY PUBLISH 

Bush's Notes on the Old Testament, 

On Genesis, 3 vols.; Exodus 2 vols.; Leviticus, 1 vol.; Joshua and Judges 1 vol.; Price 
^4.50, for the 6 volumes. Of the many flattering notices of these Volumes, we subjoin the 
tollowing from the New York Commercial Advertiser: 

To those who have not examined these Volumes, we can only say, that they may turn to Pro- 
fessor Bush's pages with the positive assurance of being better satisfied on any and every 
point of inquiry, than in any other commentary in the English language. It is one of the few 
works on which we may speak strongly without extravagance. To preachers, to scholars, to 
teachers, to Bible Classes, to common readers, it will furnish an unfailing fund of useful and 
interesting matter. 

SANDERS' SERIES OF SCHOOL BOOKS, 

COMPRISING 

Sanders' Primary School Primer, 48 pp. 

" School Reader, First Book, 120 pp. 

" School Reader, Second Book, 180 pp. 

" School Reader, Third Book, 250 pp. 

" School Reader, Fourth Book, 304 pp. 

" Spelling Book, 168 pp. 
Metrical Stories in Chemistry and Natitral Philosophy, 144 pp. 
Bradbury &, Sanders' Young Choir, 144 pp. 
Bradbury & Sanders' School Singer, or Young Choir's Companion,204 pp. 

This Series of School Books has had the most extensive circulation, since their first publication, of any ex- 
tant, and the demand is increasing in a ratio unparalleled in the history of any other set of Books. They have 
l>^cn recommended by the principal Deputy Superintendents and Teachers' associations iu the State of New 
York, and generally adopted. They have recently been adopted in all the principal towns in Ohio ; Cincinnati, 
Columbus, Chillicotlie, Circleviile, Zanesville, Lanc6ister, Sprmgfield, Xenia, Dayton, Steiibenville, Hamilton, 
Eaton, Newark, Mt, Vernon, Wheeling, Va., Pittsburgh, Alleghany, Birmingham, Canonsburg, Washington, 
i'a., St. Louis, Mo. They have also been recommended by the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the 
State of Kentucky, and already adopted in many of the principal towns of the State and also of Indiana. 



Hitclicock's Elements of Geology. 

Gray's Elements of Chemistry. 

Newman's Practical System of Rhetoric. 

IN press: 
Porter's Rhetorical Reader. 

A New Collection of Church Music, 

By HASTINGS 6c BP.ADBUHY. 



<Si<^ 






4CX<- 



















































e<l_ 



^:s- 















7c -CV C 
^c <^ ^ 



0£Z 


' <». 


^Cl- 


. € 


c€l 


C 


<€:- 


C 


<i 


c 


•in~ 


?c 



«:.c 






«cl ^ 



C.^ '^^r^ 












<- c ' 



< <- < 


^ <l 


< < - 


-"-^ ^^ 




<lt 


[_ ^^— 


4 
< 










4 
t 

1 






^-_ 





Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proces 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnoiogie 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIC 

111 TTiomson Park Drive 

^ ■ T_..»,^Kir> DA innfiR 



< < « ^^ 















<:;<^< 



<j -' 



^ ^ ^ 


















cC <" ^ <^ <- 

;< «r.CA ^ O <^- 









<^ "'^ -J: 


< 


d c c < 


-- 




f 


--, , ^^L < 


>fc!J '■ ^*^?^ ^ c" 


'^, 




<: 




^ 


5^., < . <r C/-C. . 


<^ 




< 


<r <: ^ S 




<: <r c < 




<: c c^ 5^ 


<5 
4 


^ C <i^<h. 




<i <:>^5 


-; - 


<L c: <:^5 


'pr' " 


^ <: -^^'-^ 


L_. 






't ^ ^- V ^«-- -€^" '-c^'C <!■■'- 

" <-^ "S'^ ^ ^^ *^'^" . 
\c<^. c: <^<^ ■ 

JCC d ^*^, ^.. , <i^ ^ - 



s:<ij^' ' 






«c cc; 




«^,»- ^S; 









<:l^<1-.- 

<:-<^.. 












